Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[durangodawood]

On this we're pretty much in agreement, except that I maintain the right to disagree with this societal norm, as probably most people do. It's the idea that not accepting the societal norm, i.e that something is immoral, automatically means that one believes it to be moral. I don't think that this premise necessarily holds. The failure to condemn an action doesn't by necessity mean that one approves of it.

Depends on how you frame morality.

Moral rules as permissible vs impermissible leaves no middle ground.

Moral sentiments as "good" and "bad" leaves room for neutrality.

 

[partinobodycular]

Depends on how you frame morality.

Moral rules as permissible vs impermissible leaves no middle ground.

Moral sentiments as "good" and "bad" leaves room for neutrality.

Very astute point.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is NO FENCE (NO NEUTRALITY) when it comes to MORALITY. You are either on ONE SIDE or THE OTHER.

Perhaps if we understood what the sides are then?

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Yes.
I can say I'm doing right.
You can say I'm doing wrong.
I get that.
So there is not right and wrong, only two differing views. Each might be wrong.
So Morality is neutral since it is completely dependent on viewpoints.
I'm not sure why we would compare the two anyway.




Glad I could help.

 

[SkyWriting]

If so, then his vote doesn't count because he's answering a different question than you're asking.

Doing that is immoral.

 

[zippy2006]

To me denying the neutral position is simply claiming that in not disavowing an action one is by default approving it. This has the obvious effect of forcing your conclusion to be correct no matter what. But I would argue that just as one can hold a neutral position on art, or music, or food, or anything else, one can hold a neutral position on morality. The lack of a position to the positive doesn't automatically constitute a position to the negative, or vice versa.

It's the idea that not accepting the societal norm, i.e that something is immoral, automatically means that one believes it to be moral. I don't think that this premise necessarily holds. The failure to condemn an action doesn't by necessity mean that one approves of it.

The last place we've been discussing this idea is post #50, which you have not yet responded to.


With regard to any system, prescription, or act, we can simply go back to MacIntyre's question in the OP, “Would it be for my good to live like this?” You can abstain from explicitly condemning or approving all you like, but at the end of the day your own actions will tell us how you stand with respect to the moral claim or act.

For example, someone can claim that they have no moral opinion on the question of abortion, but it is perfectly possible that tomorrow they will become involved with an unintended and unwanted pregnancy, at which point their "moral neutrality" will dissipate into thin air. Morality is fundamentally about how we act, not what we say about how we act. Talk is cheap.

You might respond by saying, "But they are morally neutral until they become pregnant." I would say this isn't neutrality so much as indecision or lack of interest. The judgments that form after they become pregnant are already present in an inchoate form long beforehand. Some people scrutinize and develop those inchoate judgments before they become pregnant, and some people don't. The main difference is that the former set of people have thought about the moral question more than the latter set.

 

[zippy2006]

Doing that is immoral.

The Democrats will not be happy about this.

 

[durangodawood]

The last place we've been discussing this idea is post #50, which you have not yet responded to.


With regard to any system, prescription, or act, we can simply go back to MacIntyre's question in the OP, “Would it be for my good to live like this?” You can abstain from explicitly condemning or approving all you like, but at the end of the day your own actions will tell us how you stand with respect to the moral claim or act.

For example, someone can claim that they have no moral opinion on the question of abortion, but it is perfectly possible that tomorrow they will become involved with an unintended and unwanted pregnancy, at which point their "moral neutrality" will dissipate into thin air. Morality is fundamentally about how we act, not what we say about how we act. Talk is cheap.

You might respond by saying, "But they are morally neutral until they become pregnant." I would say this isn't neutrality so much as indecision or lack of interest. The judgments that form after they become pregnant are already present in an inchoate form long beforehand. Some people scrutinize and develop those inchoate judgments before they become pregnant, and some people don't. The main difference is that the former set of people have thought about the moral question more than the latter set.

I guess if morality is just "what you do", then there's no escaping it.

But if morality is principles, as per most understandings of the concept, then you can definitely go through life without taking a position.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess if morality is just "what you do", then there's no escaping it.

But if morality is principles, as per most understandings of the concept, then you can definitely go through life without taking a position.

1. Of late you seem intent on misrepresenting me.
2. I never said morality is just "what you do." I have no idea who you are quoting.
3. "Morality is principles." Well no, I don't think anyone would agree with such a strange claim.
4. I think you're sore from our exchange in the capital punishment thread, so I'm going to give you some time to work that out.

 

[durangodawood]

1. Of late you seem intent on misrepresenting me.
2. I never said morality is just "what you do." I have no idea who you are quoting.
3. "Morality is principles." Well no, I don't think anyone would agree with such a strange claim.
4. I think you're sore from our exchange in the capital punishment thread, so I'm going to give you some time to work that out.

What did I do to make you so feisty???

There's lots of support for the idea that morality is principles. Start with typical dictionary definitions. If those are too facile, as they often are, move on to the various encyclopedias. Really, I wouldn't have thought this assertion would be controversial.

The quote is just to group the words. I didn't cite you.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can abstain from explicitly condemning or approving all you like, but at the end of the day your own actions will tell us how you stand with respect to the moral claim or act.

For example, someone can claim that they have no moral opinion on the question of abortion, but it is perfectly possible that tomorrow they will become involved with an unintended and unwanted pregnancy, at which point their "moral neutrality" will dissipate into thin air. Morality is fundamentally about how we act, not what we say about how we act.

I'm confused, does this mean that all those Catholic priests actually believed that abusing young boys was moral?

That would seem to be what you're suggesting. Specifically that our views on morality are reflected in what we do. Personally I think that what we believe and how we behave are very often in direct conflict with each other. And as such how a person behaves doesn't always tell you whether they believe that those actions are moral or not.

So unfortunately I don't think that this line of reasoning has any bearing on the subject of moral neutrality.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm confused, does this mean that all those Catholic priests actually believed that abusing young boys was moral?

I can't speak for them, but I've never heard of somebody doing anything that they did not have a justification for doing. At this time, I'd say yes, they thought they were justified in their actions. But I should talk to one first.

 

[zippy2006]

That would seem to be what you're suggesting. Our views on morality are reflected in what we do. Personally I think that what we believe and how we behave are very often in direct conflict with each other. And as such how a person behaves doesn't always tell you whether they believe that those actions are moral or not.

So unfortunately I don't think that this line of reasoning has any bearing on the subject of moral neutrality.

The point I was making should have been quite clear. It is that the person who professes to be morally neutral with respect to something like abortion isn’t actually morally neutral, and this becomes obvious once they must decide whether to have an abortion. They might decide to have an abortion (and this at the same time means that they decided it is moral for them to have an abortion). That doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind and regret their decision later on. If they do change their mind then they will conclude that they have made a mistake and committed an immoral act. In that case they will have corrected their moral map.

Morality is about how one should act, and on an individual level morality is about how that individual believes they, and others, should act. The most reliable way of learning how someone believes they should act is by watching them to see how they act. To say that something is moral is to say that it is good, or that it should be done. To say that something is immoral is to say that it is bad, or that it should not be done. When someone does something they have decided that it should be done, and therefore in the moment of acting they have deemed their act moral.

The exception occurs when one is incapable of carrying out the acts they believe should be done, such as happens in cases of insanity, addiction, coercion, etc. But my point was about the rule, not the exception, and in the normal case people do what they believe they should do. They decide how they should act.

There is obviously no moral neutrality in the normal case. You brought up the exceptional case, but that won’t help you, for there is also no moral neutrality in the exceptional case. The addict who hates his addiction is not morally neutral with respect to his drug abuse.

 

[partinobodycular]

At this time, I'd say yes, they thought they were justified in their actions.

I find your stance to be almost incomprehensible. Are you not aware that many of these priests actually confessed their acts. Why would they do that if they thought they were justified? Like you I'm not a mind reader, but I'm quite confident that these priests knew that their actions were immoral before, during, and after the fact.

 

[partinobodycular]

The point I was making should have been quite clear.

Yes, it was crystal clear, but I also think that it's wrong, because it's based on an exceedingly poor premise. I.E that people will always act in a way that's consistent with their morals.

This just isn't the case. Just because a person chooses to have an abortion doesn't mean that they believe that abortion is moral. I actually know cradle Catholics for whom this definitely isn't the case. Just because a person believes that lying is immoral doesn't mean that they'll never lie. And just because a priest believes that abusing young boys is immoral doesn't mean that they won't abuse them. Every Catholic church has a confessional specifically because people do what their morals tell them that they shouldn't.

So either your point wasn't as clear as either of us believe it was, or I for one believe that its wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

I find your stance to be almost incomprehensible. Are you not aware that many of these priests actually confessed their acts. Why would they do that if they thought they were justified? Like you I'm not a mind reader, but I'm quite confident that these priests knew that their actions were immoral before, during, and after the fact.

If they thought their deeds were moral to them, why wouldn't they confess?
The issue of admitting it or not does not hinge on if they thought it was right or wrong.

The way you see it is that normal thinking people can commit sex crimes knowing they are doing wrong. Which may be true. But it's just as reasonable that they don't feel they are doing wrong at the time. And whether they choose to admit it to others or not is a separate, unrelated choice.

Here's an example. Is it wrong to step on ants or not?

Naturally you've done it. And if you ever did it on purpose, did you think it was wrong, or harmless? And now as a adult, is is wrong or harmless harm?

The same goes for killing wasp nests with spray.
Or trapping mice.
I think it's wrong to kill mice. But I do it anyway.
I don't do a live trap and release.

But I have done live trap and release for larger animals.

Are smaller animals more moral to kill?
Because I have no moral problem killing mosquitoes.
But butterflies? Yes.
Mothes, no.

 

[partinobodycular]

If they thought their deeds were moral to them, why wouldn't they confess?

We're not talking here about simply discussing it with others, we're talking about confessing it to another priest in the confessional. The priest is there for the specific purpose of confessing his sins.

To be honest, it astonishes me that you would think that a priest could believe that sexually abusing a young boy was morally permissible.

And do you really think that equating sexually abusing young boys to stepping on ants is a reasonable comparison to make?

 

[SkyWriting]

We're not talking here about simply discussing it with others, we're talking about confessing it to another priest in the confessional. The priest is there for the specific purpose of confessing his sins.

To be honest, it astonishes me that you would think that a priest could believe that sexually abusing a young boy was morally permissible.

And do you really think that equating sexually abusing young boys to stepping on ants is a reasonable comparison to make?

It's a well known trait of serial killers that they kill animals as kids.
Not that they all do, but it is a sign to watch for.

What I'm saying is that you can kill mice with no thought.
Or you can feel bad about it. At a certain size, killing can go either way.

Perhaps size is the same with molesters. It's OK to do - when they're small.

I imagine they must be thinking...it's harmless harm. Why? Because if I think they are thinking then there is a chance of rehabbing them.

If I assume they are unable to stop themselves, then they are insane under the control of lust and desire emotions. But we don't do lobotomies anymore.

 

[durangodawood]

I find your stance to be almost incomprehensible. Are you not aware that many of these priests actually confessed their acts. Why would they do that if they thought they were justified? Like you I'm not a mind reader, but I'm quite confident that these priests knew that their actions were immoral before, during, and after the fact.

Yeah, people do things they know are wrong all the time.

There's often some other desire that outweighs their moral commitments. But they still know right from wrong. This is not even controversial and any theory that has to disregard this aspect of the human heart is suspect.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, it was crystal clear, but I also think that it's wrong, because it's based on an exceedingly poor premise. I.E that people will always act in a way that's consistent with their morals.

I explained why my argument does not depend on that premise in my last post. You are free to read it and respond.

So either your point wasn't as clear as either of us believe it was, or I for one believe that its wrong.

You're just ignoring what I said about exceptions in my last post.

Again, you are relying on the logical fallacy of non sequitur. The exceptional case does not help you. The exceptions are not an example of moral neutrality.