Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[zippy2006]

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.

Well I answered 'no' to the poll question, so I don't think it is possible. The OP goes into the way that people attempt to hold a neutral moral stance. 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.

 

[partinobodycular]

Your claim that you should not judge another's moral situation is a moral claim.

Ahhh, but I didn't claim that you shouldn't judge another person's actions, only that I don't. I can't force my personal "moral" map to apply to you. I put the word moral in quotations because the word implies that my map is somehow correct or good, which I'm not claiming that it is. It's simply mine.

On the contrary the most important aspect of morality is one's own personal map.

But this would mean that there is no universal moral map, and "moral" is simply a word that one uses to somehow legitimize their own personal feelings.

 

[zippy2006]

This raises a very good question, what exactly is a "morally neutral stance" and does such a thing actually exist?

Welcome to my thread.

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.

I agree.

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.

Your last sentence is the key to the difference between humans and animals on this topic. Humans can be ignorant in a culpable way, which we call "negligence."

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.

But if the onlooker is claiming that actions and events are unjust, then they are not morally neutral. They are taking a moral stand.

Of course they are neutral in the sense that they are not enmeshed in either side of the conflict. They have no dog in the partisan dispute. But that doesn't make them morally neutral.

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.

I tend to disagree with the first sentence, but I also don't see how the second sentence is derived from the first.

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.

I had thought of writing a longer response to your post #20. I was going to say that, in a general way, there is a spectrum of acts. Let's just divide them into five categories:

1. Acts that we think of as morally exemplary, such as saving a child from a burning building.
   
2. Acts that we think of as morally good, such as giving a beggar money or holding the door for others.
   
3. Acts that we think of as morally neutral, such as eating lunch or cleaning our room.
4. Acts that we think of as morally bad, such as petty theft or lying.
5. Acts that we think of as morally abhorrent, such as murder or rape.

I think that's how most people think about morality. The key for this thread is category 3. I would say that category three is still morally good, or at least morally permissible. Such acts are "worth doing," and they are rational acts that our maps indicate must be done in order to live a good life. The idea that there is a qualitative difference between category 3 and category 2 is a common mistake in American life, and it leads to all sorts of strange conclusions.

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

Your claim that you should not judge another's moral situation is a moral claim.

Ahhh, but I didn't claim that you shouldn't judge another person's actions, only that I don't. I can't force my personal "moral" map to apply to you. I put the word moral in quotations because the word implies that my map is somehow correct or good, which I'm not claiming that it is. It's simply mine.

We could have that conversation, but you're reading me wrong. Let me add emphasis, "Your claim that you should not judge another's moral situation is a moral claim." The second-person pronoun was highly intentional. This is all in line with my comment about "one's own personal map."

On the contrary the most important aspect of morality is one's own personal map.

But this would mean that there is no universal moral map, and "moral" is simply a word that one uses to somehow legitimize their own personal feelings.

Why would it mean that?

 

[durangodawood]

Well I answered 'no' to the poll question, so I don't think it is possible. The OP goes into the way that people attempt to hold a neutral moral stance. 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.

I suppose I have to read his whole lecture to find these examples. The closest we get in the quote you provided was a reference to Sartre's existentialist take on morality. But as I peruse the Stanford Encyc entry Im having a hard time finding moral neutrality there. Sartre strongly argues for behaving with responsibility for your life and against behaving in "bad faith". You make think this is a wrong morality. But its morality.

So... I'm still questioning whether this moral neutrality is really a thing, or just a fancy dress strawman to shoot at in the "culture wars".

In other words: quite possibly, moral neutrality is a myth - to put it in your terms, but meaning something rather different.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I completely agree that human ignorance or pre-moral animal minds are not examples of moral neutrality.

And with age old international disputes, observers typically arent morally neutral so much as frustrated by trying to sort through competing claims about historical fact.

Heck, even "might makes right" is an appeal to whats right.

 

[partinobodycular]

Humans can be ignorant in a culpable way, which we call "negligence."

But who's moral map are we to use in determining this culpability?

The key for this thread is category 3. I would say that category three is still morally good, or at least morally permissible.

But is it morally good?

Take for example cleaning one's room. What cleaning products are you using? Where did they come from? How were they manufactured? What environmental consequences do they entail.

Because we're not omniscient many of the actions that we consider to be morally good we deem so simply because we're oblivious to their implications. So in such cases "morally good" is a rather subjective definition. In fact this ignorance may pervade the lower categories as well, and what we deem superficially to be good, may in retrospect turn out to be bad. Or are we to judge simply by the information available to us? In which case the information available to me may not be the same as the information available to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you think that eating meat is permissible then you aren't morally neutral. The vegan thinks it is prohibited and you think it is permissible. You are both following your own guidelines for behavior. You are both following your own morality.

It's only a morality question if you think it is. I don't question the morality of eating vegetables for example. I don't question the morality of walking, though if I lay in the grass, I find animal life crawling everywhere that I'm normally stepping on. I don't consider the morality of good or bad bacteria.

So more than 99% of all actions are morally neutral.

 

[SkyWriting]

This myth of the morally neutral self is a powerful and recurring one in modern intellectual and academic life.

Like eating a carrot is morally neutral act.
Or washing my face. Or someone elses face.

 

[zippy2006]

Like eating a carrot is morally neutral act.
Or washing my face. Or someone elses face.

Or foot.

 

[zippy2006]

But who's moral map are we to use in determining this culpability?

What is your opinion on which map we use? You said, "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."

I would say that negligence in fact tends to utilize a communal-societal moral map.

But is it morally good?

Take for example cleaning one's room. What cleaning products are you using? Where did they come from? How were they manufactured? What environmental consequences do they entail.

Because we're not omniscient many of the actions that we consider to be morally good we deem so simply because we're oblivious to their implications. So in such cases "morally good" is a rather subjective definition. In fact this ignorance may pervade the lower categories as well, and what we deem superficially to be good, may in retrospect turn out to be bad. Or are we to judge simply by the information available to us? In which case the information available to me may not be the same as the information available to you.

First, it is morally good to clean one's room. Cleanliness and orderliness is helpful in living a good life, and therefore maintaining a clean room is morally good.

Second, everything else you say is basically an argument for the idea that cleaning one's room could be morally bad. For example, if one is using an environmentally detrimental cleaning product then their act could be said to be morally bad. But none of this is an argument for the idea that cleaning one's room is morally neutral. And sure, negligence aside, ignorance tends to reduce culpability. I think everyone agrees with that.

One could very easily talk about morality insofar as it only takes into account the moral agent's beliefs; and then morality insofar as it also takes into account culpable ignorance (negligence); and then morality insofar as it takes into account even rational norms apart from belief and negligence. The primary focus of this thread is the first approach, but the others also apply secondarily.

 

[zippy2006]

I suppose I have to read his whole lecture to find these examples. The closest we get in the quote you provided was a reference to Sartre's existentialist take on morality. But as I peruse the Stanford Encyc entry Im having a hard time finding moral neutrality there. Sartre strongly argues for behaving with responsibility for your life and against behaving in "bad faith". You make think this is a wrong morality. But its morality.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the quote I provided give examples of attempts at moral neutrality. MacIntyre does not take Sartre to be such an example.

In other words: quite possibly, moral neutrality is a myth - to put it in your terms, but meaning something rather different.

That is, you think it is a myth to claim that anyone professes to believe in moral neutrality. Unfortunately the proof that you are wrong is staring you straight in the face. There are now four votes in favor of the concrete possibility of moral neutrality.

 

[durangodawood]

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the quote I provided give examples of attempts at moral neutrality. MacIntyre does not take Sartre to be such an example.

Theres no examples there. Just explanations of the kind of claim he's talking about.

That is, you think it is a myth to claim that anyone professes to believe in moral neutrality. Unfortunately the proof that you are wrong is staring you straight in the face. There are now four votes in favor of the concrete possibility of moral neutrality.

I see support for moral neutrality vis a vis unexamined actions. But I dont see anyone yet taking it as a general moral position, which is the heart of the OP speech concern.

 

[SkyWriting]

A neutral stance cannot exist because neutral actions do not exist. Any action is a choice to either support one or the other in a dispute say, and by choosing not to support either, you are in effect choosing to aid the stronger party.

Almost all actions are morally neutral. There are no moral battles in 99% of my day. I strive to help my boss and help our customers. This experience also helps me.

 

[zippy2006]

I see support for moral neutrality vis a vis unexamined actions. But I dont see anyone yet taking it as a general moral position, which is the heart of the OP speech concern.

The OP and the poll are clear that the purported moral neutrality is a stance which is achieved or adopted. Someone who thinks that morally neutral acts only occur when they are, say, unexamined, cannot at the same time believe that moral neutrality is something which one achieves or adopts.

 

[durangodawood]

The OP and the poll are clear that the purported moral neutrality is a stance which is achieved or adopted. Someone who thinks that morally neutral acts only occur when they are, say, unexamined, cannot at the same time believe that moral neutrality is something which one achieves or adopts.

It seems that is what @SkyWriting is assenting to in your poll tho. If so, then his vote doesnt count because hes answering a different question than youre asking.

Has anyone here proposed they hold to the sort of moral neutrality you are concerned with? I think @partinobodycular has. So there's one. Is that the sort of stance the OP speech person is asking about tho? Maybe. But it would sure help for him to show what he's talking about. Then I'd know.

 

[partinobodycular]

I see support for moral neutrality vis a vis unexamined actions.

That's not how I see it at all. 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 would seem to me that in order to hold your position one must first demonstrate that morality is an absolute, and I don't see how you can do that.

 

[durangodawood]

.....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 would seem to me that in order to hold your position one must first demonstrate that morality is an absolute, and I don't see how you can do that.

I think morality functions whether its an absolute (which I doubt) or just a general agreement that holds society together in a way thats acceptable enough to most people.

Why not be in favor of the agreement at least in those situations where it seems beneficial?

 

[durangodawood]

...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....

Lots of people can avoid art or music, or even partake with no consequence either way.

But for most people who arent hermits, the behavior of others has significant consequences for them. When you encounter those consequences, how can you help but see the cause/effect patterns from which moral reasoning emerges?

 

[partinobodycular]

I think morality functions whether its an absolute (which I doubt) or just a general agreement that holds society together in a way thats acceptable enough to most people.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

But for most people who arent hermits, the behavior of others has significant consequences for them. When you encounter those consequences, how can you help but see the cause/effect patterns from which moral reasoning emerges?

Absolutely I can see the pattern from which it emerges, and I profoundly agree with the premise of morality, there just happen to be some claims about it's nature that propose a cause beyond a natural social construct that I feel the need to question.