Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[zippy2006]

Yes, more satisfying here for reasons other than a preference for this or that moral system. So my choice is no test about what moral system I think is better to live in from day one.

Too late to be a neutral judge. I dont know much about Timbuktu. I'll play it safe and choose what I know. USA is morally OK enough. And, call me crass, but I'm already conditioned to appreciate certain USA amenities.

Okay.

This "voting with your feet" between a country you like, and know, and grew up in, and are established in.... vs one you know hardly anything about with a different language etc etc fails completely to test for which has a better moral system on average.

Well you are the one who brought up countries, which are not the same as moral systems. Morality is about how you should live your life, and if you read a story about a morality commonly practiced in Timbuktu and decide that this is a good way to live your life, then you can adopt that moral system without moving to Timbuktu.

Its basic science. Remove confounding variables from the test. But in this case its not possible because I live those variables.

So then you agree that a morally neutral stance is not possible?

 

[durangodawood]

Okay.

Yay! this is progress!

Well you are the one who brought up countries, which are not the same as moral systems. Morality is about how you should live your life, and if you read a story about a morality commonly practiced in Timbuktu and decide that this is a good way to live your life, then you can adopt that moral system without moving to Timbuktu.

So then you agree that a morally neutral stance is not possible?

I can judge the quality of moral alternatives in the context of our own western/Euro cultural milieu. Thats why I mentioned my sense that I could condemn the Soviet system as a moral failure. I'm not a complete moral neutralist and I thought I made that clear. Right or wrong, I felt I could even grasp enough context to judge contemporary Iran's moral system as inferior in certain ways.

But there's whole other cultures out there which seem to operate according to some quite different moral rules. And reports are they produce some happy people. I cannot judge their system by isolating one moral principle from those cultures and imagining how it would function in in the modern western context. I can judge whether that principle is appropriate for our system. I cannot always judge whether that principle is right or wrong for all times places and people.

So, how much of a moral neutralist am I? 15%? 40%?

 

[zippy2006]

I can judge the quality of moral alternatives in the context of our own western/Euro cultural milieu. Thats why I mentioned my sense that I could condemn the Soviet system as a moral failure. I'm not a complete moral neutralist and I thought I made that clear. Right or wrong, I felt I could even grasp enough context to judge contemporary Iran's moral system as inferior in certain ways.

But there's whole other cultures out there which seem to operate according to some quite different moral rules. And reports are they produce some happy people. I cannot judge their system by isolating one moral principle from those cultures and imagining how it would function in in the modern western context. I can judge whether that principle is appropriate for our system. I cannot always judge whether that principle is right or wrong for all times places and people.

So, how much of a moral neutralist am I? 15%? 40%?

I still don't follow how this relates to moral neutrality, and I wish you would provide an argument for or against moral neutrality to make that more clear. As is, it seems to me that you are confusing indecision or ignorance for neutrality.

Going back to #97:

"So this is an epistemic argument? We always make decisions with limited information. For example, no one has omniscient knowledge about communist and capitalist principles and regimes. Nevertheless, they make decisions about which is better."
​

You seem to be saying that the less knowledge someone has, the more neutral they are. That would mean that if they have zero knowledge they are perfectly neutral. Yet you already agreed with partino that to be "morally oblivious" is not to be morally neutral. So again, I'm not following how this relates to neutrality.

It seems to me that someone who is morally neutral is someone who would claim to survey the moral landscape, or a particular moral system, with unbiased objectivity. "I come with no moral presuppositions of my own, and I examine the moral claims in question without any partiality."

 

[zippy2006]

I'm struggling a bit to know what [moral neutrality] really means.

• "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." (OP)
  
• "...value free, value neutral." (OP)
• "[The morally neutral self is] 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." (OP)
• "'Would it be for my good to live like this?' [...] 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." (OP)
• "Colloquially people will say that they don't care about morality, or that they don't believe in morality, or that they have no dogs in the moral fights." (Post #41)
• "It seems to me that someone who is morally neutral is someone who would claim to survey the moral landscape, or a particular moral system, with unbiased objectivity. 'I come with no moral presuppositions of my own, and I examine the moral claims in question without any partiality.'" (Post #103)
• An analogous example would be the ideal liberal or libertarian State, which is often claimed to be a morally neutral entity that provides a morally neutral framework for moral agents to live out their lives.

 

[durangodawood]

• "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." (OP)

• I thought that having a preference (choosing) among moral systems is not moral neutrality.

• "[The morally neutral self is] 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." (OP)

• Thats pretty thick and I dont feel I can penetrate it reliably.

• "'Would it be for my good to live like this?' [...] 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." (OP)

• Yes, thats the crux of his argument. And I do agree the question comes naturally. And its answerable in many cases. In those cases moral neutrality does seem a sort of unsustainable pretend position one might adopt for some ideological purpose like multiculturalism. But, as I noted, in other cases real understanding of other moral systems cannot be gained casually, and genuine immersion is required to understand. So we can rightly claim we're not in a position to judge what moral rules are best in all times and places. Still, I'd think we'd have some preference once understanding is gained.

• "Colloquially people will say that they don't care about morality, or that they don't believe in morality, or that they have no dogs in the moral fights." (Post #41)

• Thats rather unthinking, and hopefully the OP guy is challenging something deeper than just a "whatever" attitude some people hold. I think he is.

• "It seems to me that someone who is morally neutral is someone who would claim to survey the moral landscape, or a particular moral system, with unbiased objectivity. 'I come with no moral presuppositions of my own, and I examine the moral claims in question without any partiality.'" (Post #103)

• Yeah, people naturally like certain things. And we are conditioned to like others. Those values will drive us toward certain moral rules and away from others

I think my biggest problem with his argument is that I'm having trouble personifying this morally-neutral position. Who hold this? Whats their rationale? Im not sure the position is reliably represented by an opponent of the position. Almost to the point where Im back to my original sense that this extreme moral-neutrality may not be so much myth as mythical.

(Darn it, this post is infected by bullets and I cant get rid of them. Thanks, zippy!)

 

[zippy2006]

...But, as I noted, in other cases real understanding of other moral systems cannot be gained casually, and genuine immersion is required to understand. So we can rightly claim we're not in a position to judge what moral rules are best in all times and places.

Then my characterization in post #103 is likely accurate. It seems that you are talking about lack of knowledge rather than moral neutrality. Whether or not we are "in a position to judge" does not have any bearing on whether we are morally neutral. Neither the bad judge nor the good judge are morally neutral, and we've already agreed that being "morally oblivious" is not neutrality either.

I thought that having a preference (choosing) among moral systems is not moral neutrality.

If one were able to choose among moral systems from a standpoint external to all moral commitments, then they would be morally neutral. That's what MacIntyre is saying.

I think my biggest problem with his argument is that I'm having trouble personifying this morally-neutral position. Who hold this? Whats their rationale? Im not sure the position is reliably represented by an opponent of the position. Almost to the point where Im back to my original sense that this extreme moral-neutrality may not be so much myth as mythical.

I'm not really going to get into this since I am going to be offline for awhile.

That said, I know all sorts of people who believe themselves to be morally neutral, including some on this forum, including some who voted for moral neutrality in this thread. Beyond that, MacIntyre is widely recognized as being one of the most important moral philosophers of the last 100 years. It would be quite odd for him to give a keynote address on the basis of a strawman. Of course in his paper he references academic philosophers who take this position, and there have been responses to his paper and his work from those who take him to be mistaken regarding moral neutrality.

 

[Moral Orel]

That said, I know all sorts of people who believe themselves to be morally neutral, including some on this forum, including some who voted for moral neutrality in this thread.

For the record, I voted "no". I am not neutral about the way I or others behave the same way I'm not neutral about whether I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream. And if that's all you and Mac are saying, I agree.

 

[partinobodycular]

I am not neutral about the way I or others behave the same way I'm not neutral about whether I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream.

But what you're proposing by voting "no" to the OP is that not only are you morally neutral, but that such a position is in fact impossible.

Per your analogy, what you're proposing is that not only do you prefer chocolate over vanilla, but that everyone else must prefer one over the other as well. It's absolutely impossible for them to be neutral as to which one they prefer.

I voted "yes" because I think that it is indeed possible to be neutral on one's preference for chocolate or vanilla.

 

[Moral Orel]

But what you're proposing by voting "no" to the OP is that not only are you morally neutral, but that such a position is in fact impossible.

What?? That's bonkers. Voting "no" means I am not morally neutral and neither is anyone else.

Per your analogy, what you're proposing is that not only do you prefer chocolate over vanilla, but that everyone else must prefer one over the other as well. It's absolutely impossible for them to be neutral as to which one they prefer.

Absolutely wrong. I can prefer to behave a certain way, and I can prefer that others behave a certain way without any sort of belief that they must behave that way or that there is any correct way to behave. But that preference is a bias, and a bias is not neutral.

 

[partinobodycular]

What?? That's bonkers. Voting "no" means I am not morally neutral and neither is anyone else.

So are you saying that while it's possible to be morally neutral...nobody actually is? On anything?

Absolutely wrong. I can prefer to behave a certain way, and I can prefer that others behave a certain way without any sort of belief that they must behave that way or that there is any correct way to behave. But that preference is a bias, and a bias is not neutral.

I'm confused, are you saying that it's impossible for me to be neutral as to the proper way to behave?

 

[Moral Orel]

So are you saying that while it's possible to be morally neutral...nobody actually is? On anything?

hat I just said. I am not morally neutral and neither is anyone else. You included.

I'm confused, are you saying that it's impossible for me to be neutral as to the proper way to behave?

You have preferences on how others behave and on how you behave.

 

[partinobodycular]

You have preferences on how others behave and on how you behave.

So if I were to say that I'm neutral on the question of whether it's moral to eat meat or not, you would claim that this can't possibly be true.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if I were to say that I'm neutral on the question of whether it's moral to eat meat or not, you would claim that this can't possibly be true.

Do you eat meat?

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you eat meat?

Yes, so what? That doesn't by necessity mean that I've attached a moral judgment to that act. You seem to think that it must by necessity involve a moral judgment...why?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, so what? That doesn't by necessity mean that I've attached a moral judgment to that act. You seem to think that it must by necessity involve a moral judgment...why?

You have a preference about behavior. What are moral judgements other than that?

 

[partinobodycular]

You have a preference about behavior. What are moral judgements other than that?

Yes, but those preferences don't by default always include morality. For example, my preference for eating meat may be based upon the taste, or the price, or my doctor's advice, but when it comes to my choice to eat meat morality may have absolutely nothing to do with it because I have no moral position on the subject...I'm neutral.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, but those preferences don't by default always include morality. For example, my preference for eating meat may be based upon the taste, or the price, or my doctor's advice, but when it comes to my choice to eat meat morality may have absolutely nothing to do with it because I have no moral position on the subject...I'm neutral.

You have a preference about behavior. You are not neutral.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, but those preferences don't by default always include morality. For example, my preference for eating meat may be based upon the taste, or the price, or my doctor's advice, but when it comes to my choice to eat meat morality may have absolutely nothing to do with it because I have no moral position on the subject...I'm neutral.

You would say eating meat is morally OK, or morally permissible tho, right?

You could still be neutral as to whether its "good". Or "bad".

 

[partinobodycular]

You have a preference about behavior. You are not neutral.

You would say eating meat is morally OK, or morally permissible tho, right?

No, I would say that morality has absolutely nothing to do with my choice to eat meat. Just as how something tastes has a bearing on what I choose to eat, but has absolutely no bearing on what I choose to wear.

For me, choosing to eat meat isn't a moral choice, even if you choose to frame it as such.

 

[Moral Orel]

You would say eating meat is morally OK, or morally permissible tho, right?

You could still be neutral as to whether its "good". Or "bad".

He isn't neutral about whether its "good" or "bad" because he prefers it himself. It's "good to him", as it were.