Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[zippy2006]

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.

Indeed. "The addict who hates his addiction is not morally neutral with respect to his drug abuse."

 

[partinobodycular]

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

To be quite certain that I understood your argument I went back and reread it.

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.

After rereading it I'm confident that I understood it, and I'm also confident that your premise is fundamentally flawed. I'm also certain that rehashing it over and over again isn't going to help. So I see no sense in doing so.

Bye

 

[zippy2006]

To be quite certain that I understood your argument I went back and reread it.

After rereading it I'm confident that I understood it, and I'm also confident that your premise is fundamentally flawed. I'm also certain that rehashing it over and over again isn't going to help. So I see no sense in doing so.

Bye

So you haven't read post #73 and you haven't responded to post #50. That means you really aren't willing to consider objections to your own view, and therefore as J. S. Mill observed, you probably don't even understand your own view.

Given that you aren't willing to read my posts, I could sum up your quandary in a single sentence:

What is an example of a moral claim that you are neutral towards?​

 

[durangodawood]

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

Your response to the problem that people sometimes do acts they know to be wrong is: that can only be from addiction, insanity, coercion.

Yet I think most people in their own lives recognize times when theyve knowingly done wrong things just for convenience, or thrills, material gain, or self aggrandizement. I would bet nearly everyone here would corroborate this.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

The idea that sane peoples choices always align with their beliefs is just fantasy.

 

[zippy2006]

Your response to the problem that people sometimes do acts they know to be wrong is: that can only be from addiction, insanity, coercion.

I gave those as three examples, followed by "etc." In the same sentence I gave the principle at stake, which you ignore. I didn't say "only." These are more of your misrepresentations.

Yet I think most people in their own lives recognize times when theyve knowingly done wrong things just for convenience, or thrills, or material gain. I would bet nearly everyone here would corroborate this.

People sometimes act in conflicted ways and later come to regret their actions. I talked about regret in the first paragraph of that post.

"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."
​

The complement here is the normal case, where someone carries out an act they believe should be done. If someone is thus acting, and they choose material gain at the expense of some other value, then they are making a moral choice in favor of material gain. They have determined that material gain is the more important thing, whether or not they later come to regret their decision. If they are not thus acting, then we have the case of the exception.

In neither case is the person morally neutral.

 

[durangodawood]

.

 

[SkyWriting]

Indeed. "The addict who hates his addiction is not morally neutral with respect to his drug abuse."

Addicts are a special case. We all know that.

 

[SkyWriting]

We're not talking here about simply discussing it with others, we're talking about confessing it to another priest in the confessional.

But I don't know that's what you are thinking until after you say it.
So it's not what I was talking about and I am off the hook for being ignorant.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I don't know that's what you are thinking until after you say it.
So it's not what I was talking about and I am off the hook for being ignorant.

Then the misunderstanding was mine as well, and perhaps I was too critical...sorry.

 

[durangodawood]

...If someone is thus acting, and they choose material gain at the expense of some other value, then they are making a moral choice in favor of material gain. They have determined that material gain is the more important thing, whether or not they later come to regret their decision. If they are not thus acting, then we have the case of the exception....

Not necessarily.

Some people who steal concoct a morality in which they are, as a matter of justice, owed the stuff they steal. But most just want stuff and know its wrong, and make no effort to frame the act as a moral positive.

Basically I'm contesting the idea that every act expresses a moral position. Everywhere I look morality is described as system of values and principles, or a code for right and wrong behavior. Systems, principles, codes.... these all can be held in one part of mind, while the impulse to act occupies another.

 

[zippy2006]

Not necessarily.

Some people who steal concoct a morality in which they are, as a matter of justice, owed the stuff they steal. But most just want stuff and know its wrong, and make no effort to frame the act as a moral positive.

Basically I'm contesting the idea that every act expresses a moral position. Everywhere I look morality is described as system of values and principles, or a code for right and wrong behavior. Systems, principles, codes.... these all can be held in one part of mind, while the impulse to act occupies another.

Post #73 contains a great deal. It's a shame no one read it. At least now I can just keep quoting it. This is what you need to respond to, and it is explicitly about the "normal case":

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.

 

[durangodawood]

Post #73 contains a great deal. It's a shame no one read it. At least now I can just keep quoting it. This is what you need to respond to, and it is explicitly about the "normal case":

Yeah that part you quoted is precisely what I was contesting.

The idea that people reliably do what they think they should do seems absurd. It flies in the face of everything we know from the people around us, literature, introspection....everything.

People act contrary to what they know about obligation, duty and correctness all the time. Those are beliefs. Actions can be belief motivated. OR they can be desire motivated. Belief not necc = desire. And both can live in a person.

 

[zippy2006]

The idea that people reliably do what they think they should do seems absurd.

But in #73 I was clear that people don't always do what they think they should, and it seems that your counterargument about people being carried away by uncontrollable desire falls directly into that exception category.

We can talk about how desires relate to actions, but first I want to know if your posts have anything to do with the OP. In #73 I divided human acts into two categories and claimed that because neither category is morally neutral, no human act is morally neutral. Are you contesting that conclusion by claiming that there is a third category that I have missed? Is your argument related to the OP's topic of moral neutrality?

Zippy: People do what they want want to do 85% of the time, and they do what they don't want to do 15% of the time. In neither case is their action morally neutral.
Durangoda: On the contrary, I would say it is 65-35.
Zippy: Er, okay? How does that affect the conclusion?​

 

[durangodawood]

But in #73 I was clear that people don't always do what they think they should, and it seems that your counterargument about people being carried away by uncontrollable desire falls directly into that exception category.

We can talk about how desires relate to actions, but first I want to know if your posts have anything to do with the OP. In #73 I divided human acts into two categories and claimed that because neither category is morally neutral, no human act is morally neutral. Are you contesting that conclusion by claiming that there is a third category that I have missed? Is your argument related to the OP's topic of moral neutrality?

Zippy: People do what they want want to do 85% of the time, and they do what they don't want to do 15% of the time. In neither case is their action morally neutral.
Durangoda: On the contrary, I would say it is 65-35.
Zippy: Er, okay? How does that affect the conclusion?​

I think we're having a side-bar discussion. I cant recall exactly where this notion that you can tell a persons moral beliefs from their actions popped up. But thats the only thing Im contesting.

Re moral neutrality, I'm still not sure. I can see the OP point in terms of those morals over which rival moral systems do not generally compete. Like: dont unilaterally kill your neighbor. Dont steal his stuff. Etc. You ask would my life be better if I could kill Bob just because I felt like it, and every moral system out there screams "no". Its easy to get on board with "no", and assume that my own intuition is correct.

But where enduring moral systems do contradict, for proper consideration the subject is asked to imagine life in a foreign moral regime. Theres a POV problem. You can imagine your dissatisfaction with a foreign moral rule in terms of life in your native system. But its really hard to envisage the quality of your life satisfaction in the entire context of the foreign system.

 

[zippy2006]

I think we're having a side-bar discussion. I cant recall exactly where this notion that you can tell a persons moral beliefs from their actions popped up. But thats the only thing Im contesting.

Okay, well let's hold off on the sidebar until after we address the OP:

Re moral neutrality, I'm still not sure. I can see the OP point in terms of those morals over which rival moral systems do not generally compete. Like: dont unilaterally kill your neighbor. Dont steal his stuff. Etc. You ask would my life be better if I could kill Bob just because I felt like it, and every moral system out there screams "no". Its easy to get on board with "no", and assume that my own intuition is correct.

But where enduring moral systems do contradict, for proper consideration the subject is asked to imagine life in a foreign moral regime. Theres a POV problem. You can imagine your dissatisfaction with a foreign moral rule in terms of life in your native system. But its really hard to envisage the quality of your life satisfaction in the entire context of the foreign system.

...Which is an argument against moral neutrality, no? If one could straddle two moral systems with perfect balance then they would be able to achieve neutrality vis-a-vis those two systems, but you don't believe that is possible. Therefore moral neutrality is not achievable in such a way.

 

[durangodawood]

...Which is an argument against moral neutrality, no? If one could straddle two moral systems with perfect balance then they would be able to achieve neutrality vis-a-vis those two systems, but you don't believe that is possible. Therefore moral neutrality is not achievable in such a way.

Nooo. If you had deep insight into the breadth of life, both external and internal, under various moral systems you could tell for sure which one youd prefer if they did indeed offer different qualities of life.

I think many fair minded people conclude they cant properly judge what they cant know. And so they are not in a position to hold one moral system superior to another.

To me tho, many foreign moral systems arent so utterly opaque. I can read a testimonial about being a woman in Tehran or an artist in Soviet Prague and at least feel like I'm getting a grasp of the big picture enough to have an overall preference. Others systems though...? I read a sort of linguistic ethnography of the Pidahan tribe. I almost think nothing short of immersion would qualify me to judge whether my overall life would be more satisfying here or there.

 

[zippy2006]

Nooo. If you had deep insight into the breadth of life, both external and internal, under various moral systems you could tell for sure which one youd prefer if they did indeed offer different qualities of life.

I think many fair minded people conclude they cant properly judge what they cant know. And so they are not in a position to hold one moral system superior to another.

To me tho, many foreign moral systems arent so utterly opaque. I can read a testimonial about being a woman in Tehran or an artist in Soviet Prague and at least feel like I'm getting a grasp of the big picture enough to have an overall preference. Others systems though...? I read a sort of linguistic ethnography of the Pidahan tribe. I almost think nothing short of immersion would qualify me to judge whether my overall life would be more satisfying here or there.

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 may not "consider yourself qualified to judge" whether your life would be more satisfying in Timbuktu, but by deciding to stay in the US you have implicitly made a judgment that your life would be more satisfying here.

That is the point I was making about actions. It's incorrect to claim that you are morally neutral with respect to the question of whether life would be better in Timbuktu. You make that judgment every day you remain in the US, limited knowledge and all.

 

[durangodawood]

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 read where I did exactly that, right?

You may not "consider yourself qualified to judge" whether your life would be more satisfying in Timbuktu, but by deciding to stay in the US you have implicitly made a judgment that your life would be more satisfying here.

That is massively false, and frankly facile. Theres enormous costs to moving to Timbuktu which could overwhelm the benefits I might find in the new moral structure. Loved ones. Starting over with work. Language. On and on.

Even deeper, I was raised here. Aspects of the culture are ingrained in a way that cannot be replaced by just "shopping around". Even if a different moral system elsewhere produces happier people on balance, thats no guarantee it will work for me after a couple decades of cradle to adulthood immersion in this country. I could be a sad cultural alien in a land of happy people.

 

[zippy2006]

Even deeper, I was raised here. Aspects of the culture are ingrained in a way that cannot be replaced by just "shopping around". Even if a different moral system elsewhere produces happier people on balance, thats no guarantee it will work for me after a couple decades of cradle to adulthood immersion in this country. I could be a sad cultural alien in a land of happy people.

And again, that's why you have made the decision to remain in the United States. You have made a concrete judgment that your life would be more satisfying here. There's no reason to believe that this claim of mine overlooks costs or somesuch thing. The costs are built in to your decision, as you aptly demonstrate in this quote.

Suppose you were given the opportunity to restart your entire life, and you have the option of being born in the US or Timbuktu. You seem to think that moral neutrality could enter in due to some lack of knowledge about Timbuktu. I don't know how that could be. Feel free to provide an argument.

 

[durangodawood]

And again, that's why you have made the decision to remain in the United States. You have made a concrete judgment that your life would be more satisfying here. There's no reason to believe that this claim of mine overlooks costs or somesuch thing. The costs are built in to your decision, as you aptly demonstrate in this quote.

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.

Suppose you were given the opportunity to restart your entire life, and you have the option of being born in the US or Timbuktu. You seem to think that moral neutrality could enter in due to some lack of knowledge about Timbuktu. I don't know how that could be. Feel free to provide an argument.

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.

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.

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