Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[zippy2006]

But this still doesn't answer the question. What makes an action a matter of morality in the first place?

I follow the tradition stemming from St. Thomas Aquinas in saying that a moral act is a rational act (an act of intellect and will).

A moral system provides one with a map for the best way to act. Some systems are explicit, some are implicit, but everyone employs an approach for trying to act in the best possible way.

Do animals make moral choices? Or are they morally neutral, not considering an action's morality at all?

Animals don't use maps or reasoning processes.

Or, if you thought animals were rational, then yes, they would be moral agents.

 

[partinobodycular]

A moral system provides one with a map for the best way to act. Some systems are explicit, some are implicit, but everyone employs an approach for trying to act in the best possible way.

But isn't this moral map something that we create? What makes you think that this moral map has any merit?

It would seem as though we simply make it up.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Okay, fair enough.



Have you ever heard Etienne Gilson's saying, "Metaphysics always buries its undertakers?" Well it's much the same with morality. To pass a judgment on a moral system is to implicate oneself in moral claims, even if that is not one's intention.

Let me just paraphrase MacIntyre, since he talks about this right before the OP quote at 21:31. He talks about David Wong, a pluralistic relativist, who in critiquing all morality on the basis of relativism has at the same time implicitly set up a (relativistic) moral system of his own.

For example, if someone says that all moral systems are culturally defined, then they have at the same time subscribed themselves to the moral norms of their own culture. The only alternative would be for them to claim that they have no morality (which is impossible) or that their morality transcends their culture (which contradicts their own claim about moral systems being culturally defined). In this way overarching judgments about moral systems tend to be at the same time moral judgments which alter the speaker's moral landscape.



Here you provide all sorts of reasons for believing that your morality is objective:

• You think you're right and you want them to agree.
• The reason you wouldn't agree with someone is because you or they are "mad" (i.e. irrational).
• Decisions elicit criticisms and defense. If nothing objective were at stake, rational criticism and rational defense would both be absurd.

"I think I'm right" is an admission, sort of, of a subjective position. I have my reasons. My interlocutor may have their reasons. I may or may not be able to convince my interlocutor. They may or may not be able to convince me. There is nothing objective about this. There is nothing here absurd. We simply recognize that we each have a different opinion. The very fact of this renders morality subjective.

This is why I think "objective/subjective" is a distraction from real moral discourse. How does one make a moral choice? Again, saying there is objective morality solves nothing.

 

[zippy2006]

But isn't this moral map something that we create? What makes you think that this moral map has any merit?

It would seem as though we simply make it up.

Some people make up their own map, and even if you are an Orthodox Jew following hundreds of commandments, a lot will still be left up to your discretion.

Do you think your own moral map has merit?

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you think your own moral map has merit?

Nope

Do you think yours does?

 

[zippy2006]

Nope

Then why are you using it?

Do you think yours does?

Yup. That's why I use it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then why are you using it?

I try not to. In fact I can't remember the last time that I made a moral judgment regarding someone else's behavior.

I quite often judge people's reasoning however, but judging morality isn't something that I feel qualified to do.

Do you think yours does?

Yup. That's why I use it.

Hmmm...I'm curious, on what basis do you presume that your moral map is any more legitimate than anyone else's?

 

[zippy2006]

I try not to. In fact I can't remember the last time that I made a moral judgment regarding someone else's behavior.

What about your behavior? Because that's, y'know, what the entire thread is about.

Again, from MacIntyre:

Every rational agent has—cannot but have—some conception of her or his good. Perhaps inchoate, inadequately spelled out, indeterminate to varying degrees, but every such agent confronted by the claims upon her or him of some particular morality has it in them to ask, “Would it be for my good to live like this?”​

 

[zippy2006]

This is why I think "objective/subjective" is a distraction from real moral discourse. How does one make a moral choice? Again, saying there is objective morality solves nothing.

Possibly, but that's really not what this thread is about.

"I think I'm right" is an admission, sort of, of a subjective position. I have my reasons. My interlocutor may have their reasons. I may or may not be able to convince my interlocutor. They may or may not be able to convince me. There is nothing objective about this. There is nothing here absurd. We simply recognize that we each have a different opinion. The very fact of this renders morality subjective.

I feel like a lot of this has already been hashed out in the previous thread, Is there Objective Morality? If you like, we can continue the objective/subjective conversation over there. I did include a small bit about subjectivity in post #2, but it seems that the other thread would be the better place to discuss this in detail.

 

[partinobodycular]

What about your behavior?

My actions are guided almost exclusively by two things, convenience and necessity. With a strong tendency toward the former. Morality, where it may seem to exist is merely a consequence of those two things.

People are often misled into believing that I'm a much more moral person than I actually am. My actions are far more selfish than they might appear.

 

[zippy2006]

My actions are guided almost exclusively by two things, convenience and necessity. With a strong tendency toward the former. Morality, where it may seem to exist is merely a consequence of those two things.

Okay, but those two things are a bit vague. Convenient or necessary according to what measure? Necessary for survival? Or luxury? Or comfort? Or esteem? Or promotion? And does acting according to convenience just mean that you attempt to expend the least amount of energy and effort possible? As in, if you inherited an enormous amount of money you would spend most of your time laying on the couch, munching on potato chips?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Possibly, but that's really not what this thread is about.



I feel like a lot of this has already been hashed out in the previous thread, Is there Objective Morality? If you like, we can continue the objective/subjective conversation over there. I did include a small bit about subjectivity in post #2, but it seems that the other thread would be the better place to discuss this in detail.

Well I was wondering why you singled that stuff out of my post (though I admit it was the longest portion).

I've agreed that inasmuch as I grasp what moral neutrality is supposed to be, it is a myth.

 

[zippy2006]

Well I was wondering why you singled that stuff out of my post (though I admit it was the longest portion).

Yeah, that seemed to be the vast majority of your post. At the end of your post you wrote, "The above essay was inspired by 'objectively satisfying'," and presumably everything above that was about the objective/subjective question.

If you want to continue that conversation o'er yonder we can. I could just pull some of your quotes over to that thread? I am quite open to doing so.

I've agreed that inasmuch as I grasp what moral neutrality is supposed to be, it is a myth.

Okay. I think we agree on the main topic, then.

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay, but those two things are a bit vague. Convenient or necessary according to what measure?

Necessary for survival?

Survival is important, but there are more important things than survival, like being content with one's life. Learn to be content and you'll never be poor.

Or luxury? Or comfort? Or esteem? Or promotion?

No. I neither have nor desire any of those things. And to the extent that anyone would hold me in esteem it's an honor that I don't deserve.

And does acting according to convenience just mean that you attempt to expend the least amount of energy and effort possible?

Yes and no, it means spending the least amount of energy and effort on things that aren't important. And every ounce of energy on things that are, like others. Give me a place to rest my head and I'll be content. Give me wealth and I'll more than likely just give it away.

As in, if you inherited an enormous amount of money you would spend most of your time laying on the couch, munching on potato chips?

Surprisingly, it doesn't take much money to do that. If I inherited an enormous amount of money all that it would probably mean is that I would have a new pair of shoes. And perhaps I could have my dog back. But that's probably asking too much.

 

[zippy2006]

Survival is important, but there are more important things than survival, like being content with one's life. Learn to be content and you'll never be poor.

No. I neither have nor desire any of those things. And to the extent that anyone would hold me in esteem it's an honor that I don't deserve.

Yes and no, it means spending the least amount of energy and effort on things that aren't important. And every ounce of energy on things that are, like others. Give me a place to rest my head and I'll be content. Give me wealth and I'll more than likely just give it away.

Surprisingly, it doesn't take much money to do that. If I inherited an enormous amount of money all that it would probably mean is that I would have a new pair of shoes. And perhaps I could have my dog back. But that's probably asking too much.

Okay, but earlier you said that nearly all of your actions are guided by convenience and necessity. Then I asked what kinds of actions are motivated by those things and there seem to be only a few, such as survival and "things that aren't important."

But then you said that you value "being content with one's life," and that you spend "every ounce of energy on things that are [important], like others." Neither of these things seem to be explained by convenience or necessity, and the claim that you consider other people to be important and expend large amounts of energy on them seems to contrast with your earlier claim that your "actions are far more selfish than they appear."

In any case, it would appear that your morality has significantly more to it than "convenience and necessity." It actually sounds like you have a lot of traditional moral values. A chunk of Stoicism, some Epicureanism, an emphasis on altruism and being oriented towards others, humility with respect to honors, magnanimity with personal wealth, simplicity of life, care for animals...

Do you still hold that your moral map has no merit? That none of these things you've mentioned are helpful to you in living a good life?

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you still hold that your moral map has no merit?

Yes I do. For as much as you may deem them to be morals, I apply them only to myself and not to others. Your life is yours to live and not mine. The burden you carry isn't mine to know, and therefore the character with which you do it isn't mine to judge, nor the standard by which you do it mine to set.

I did ponder adding more to convenience and necessity, but in all honesty seldom do I step outside of those two things. What may seem to others to have been a noble path was more often than not simply a convenient one. So yes I do seek contentment, but far too often contentment is just convenience in disguise.

Yeah you could put a lot more descriptions under my name than "Agnostic". Stoic wouldn't be that far off, but than again Christian wouldn't offend me either if someone had a mind to. But I'll leave such titles to others to apply, people seem so eager to do so.

 

[com7fy8]

Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

Yes, because the one taking the sideline is trying make oneself a god who does not need to answer for himself or herself to anyone else. Making yourself your god is not neutral! You are standing for yourself, though you are isolating yourself; yet, your effort to do this is somehow influenced by others > no one can totally act on one's own, then, therefore can not be perfectly neutral . . . isolated from any other influence. But one might try, in order to not be hurt. Or, someone might pretend to be neutral in order to avoid others interfering in one's pleasure seeking, and to avoid using energy to defend one's activities.

 

[durangodawood]

It seems to me that a lot of folks who are critical of morality envision themselves as standing on the sidelines, watching a game they have no interest in, and making jokes to one another about how silly the players are. We could call the game “Moral inquiry” or “Moral reasoning.”

In this thread I am questioning the idea of whether the sidelines exist. It seems to me that everyone is a player in the game of moral reasoning, and there are no sidelines. What do you think? Is moral neutrality possible?


Rather than give my own arguments, I am going to let a quote from Alasdair MacIntyre do the work of the OP. This quote comes from his 2019 keynote lecture at a Notre Dame ethics conference, “Moral Relativisms Reconsidered.” I think it will be sufficient to get the thread off the ground, although I will also anticipate an objection in post #2. Comments about other parts of the lecture are also welcome.

Prior to this quote MacIntyre is talking about the question of trying to determine which competing moral system is correct, including very recent forms of pluralistic relativism. He goes on:

---------------

One answer to this question that has to be rejected is this: that just because we now have to make a choice between rival sets of standards that are to govern our moral choices, we are condemned to making a higher order choice that cannot itself be governed by standards. Judging from within a morality, it may be said we appeal to standards by what Harmon calls a frame of reference. But when judging between alternative moralities we can only make a criterionless choice of a frame of reference—a conclusion that was argued for by Sartre a long time ago. Are we then condemned to be existentialists? I think not. For it’s never true that we are compelled to make criterionless choices of this kind. Why not?

Every rational agent has—cannot but have—some conception of her or his good. Perhaps inchoate, inadequately spelled out, indeterminate to varying degrees, but every such agent confronted by the claims upon her or him of some particular morality has it in them to ask, “Would it be for my good to live like this?”, and the answers elicited by this question will vary from agent to agent, and from morality to morality.

Note now something oft not noticed about relativists and by relativists. They are agents who have suppressed in themselves, for the moment at least, any inclination to ask this question. And the self who they envisage has committed to no particular morality--as able from a standpoint external to all moral commitments to compare and contrast moralities, to choose between them—is an imaginary self. For every actual self, in virtue of its conception of its good, is already inclined in one direction rather than another.

This myth of the morally neutral self is a powerful and recurring one in modern intellectual and academic life. It gives one more expression to the characteristically modern conception of the self as autonomous, as recognizing no authority external to itself, and it’s often presented in disguised form in versions of the claim that the social sciences—sciences that study human agency in its institutionalized forms—can only be objective if they are value free, value neutral. It's a presupposition of all those who, in presenting some version of relativism from some non-relativistic standpoint, take that standpoint to guarantee their own objectivity and neutrality. But it's a myth. Any agent confronted by the incompatible claims of rival moralities has the resources to ask, first, what reasons do I have for deciding that it would be best for me to acknowledge the authority of this set of claims rather than that, and secondly, if they can identify no sufficient reasons for arriving at such a decision, to ask what it is they must first learn in order to be able to make such a choice. What skills must they acquire, what qualities of character must they develop, if they are to know how to deliberate and to make choices in a relevant way? To these questions the most interesting answer is Aristotle’s…

-Moral Relativisms Reconsidered - 22:40-26:40, Emphasis Mine​

Can you provide an example of a person holding a "morally neutral stance"? Maybe this is from literature or from the news.
I ask for two reasons:

1. I'm struggling a bit to know what this really means.

2. If after some consideration you cannot provide an example, then that might indicate its not a real thing.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes I do. For as much as you may deem them to be morals, I apply them only to myself and not to others. Your life is yours to live and not mine. The burden you carry isn't mine to know, and therefore the character with which you do it isn't mine to judge, nor the standard by which you do it mine to set.

But this argument you are giving is moral through and through, and that lines up nicely with the OP. Your claim that you should not judge another's moral situation is a moral claim. Further, the definitions I gave don't restrict morality to judging others. On the contrary the most important aspect of morality is one's own personal map.

Yeah you could put a lot more descriptions under my name than "Agnostic". Stoic wouldn't be that far off, but than again Christian wouldn't offend me either if someone had a mind to. But I'll leave such titles to others to apply, people seem so eager to do so.

Okay.

 

[partinobodycular]

Can you provide an example of a person holding a "morally neutral stance"? Maybe this is from literature or from the news.

This raises a very good question, what exactly is a "morally neutral stance" and does such a thing actually exist? I must admit that I'm often guilty of taking a stance on something without actually understanding what it is that it's referring to, and this may be one of those instances.

So to understand my position on a "morally neutral stance" let me first explain what I think it's not. Some might consider that most animals have a morally neutral stance because they act without regard to that action's moral implications. But they do this simply because they lack a concept of good and evil which is indispensable to making such judgments. Therefore they're not morally neutral they're simply morally oblivious.

Likewise people are often morally oblivious as well when they act without fully understanding the implications of what they're doing. But in such cases we're not morally neutral, we're simply morally oblivious. In our ignorance we humans are often guilty, not only of being morally oblivious, but through our ignorance, of actually doing things which are morally wrong.

On the other hand let's consider two countries which are engaged in a dispute for some reason or other, with skirmishes and conflicts stretching back generations. Each side will likely claim the moral high ground, and point to history to justify their claim. In such a case an outside observer may well take a stance that's morally neutral, understanding that both the action being taken and the events that precipitated it are equally unjust. We as a species have long recognized that certain acts, although fundamentally immoral, are none the less justified if they are undertaken for a just cause. Which can inevitably lead us to taking a position that's morally neutral.

In other words these are actions, such as killing others, that we would never claim to be morally right, but we would accept as being morally justified.

Now I'm very open to differing opinions on this. So please give it some thought and let me know what you think.