An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)

[chaz wyman]

A special extended column from our (erstwhile) Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/80/An_A ... sto_Part_I

1) Morality is not necessarily a thing commanded.
2) God and Morality are not necessarily connected.
3) Darwin is not a replacement god for a moral code, but that does not mean that Darwin's negation of the need for a god to command morality, means that there can be no morality.
Morality, and the invention of god to impose that morality on the believer is a human creation; that is not to say that morality cannot be suggested or created without a god. There are ethnographic examples where morality exists without an overpowering god.
4) Morality suggests one's manner of behaviour or character. There is no particular reason it has to be compared to a universal code.

Is his confusion of god and morality an AMerican thing???

There are some other puzzling assumptions in the text that I am not happy with. Why does he think that eating meat is not completely compatible with loving animals. I love animals and also love eating meat, and it is not simply the case that I love the eating more than the animals; by love of animals is not in the same category as eating. I just don't see killing animals are bad for them. How many cows and sheep would there be if there were no market for them? None. And is it not the case that under human care they have longer lives and less painful deaths than that dished out by nature or the predator?

[chaz wyman]

The author is a retired professor of philosophy. http://www.newhaven.edu/4488/4508/4566/ Previously, he was committed to Kantianism. In this article, he admits to being an atheist and an amoralist. He no longer believes that there is such a thing as right and wrong! “I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality.”

My thoughts on this amazing article:

Publishing a lie is neither right nor wrong. Thus, Marks’ claim that he has rejected Kantianism in favor of amoralism may be a lie. Marks can now tell lies at will.

He recognizes no constraints, other than those in duly enacted law, upon his personal conduct.

He apparently no longer recognizes any duties other than those specified in the duly enacted law.

He does not recognize any mandatory loyalty to any other person or institution.

His relation to the concept of trust is problematic.

Practically, I suggest that anyone who has personal contact with Professor Marks should henceforth treat him like a drug addict.

Do you think you might be missing a sense of irony??

[chaz wyman]

Perhaps at one time Kant also thought there was no right and wrong, like Marks believes. But I sure Marks understands Kant's 'categorical imperative', evoking the idea of Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. From that axiom a systematic practice of right and wrong has developed in society, which the majority adhere to. Thus, there really is an understanding of what basically is right and wrong.

There is another interesting article in this issue, on being Cool. Some think it is cool to be an atheist and to think there is no right or wrong.

That is not at all what Kant said. His categorical imperative states, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". This allows for inequality of action. One might strike a woman because she is a wife, and that the striking of all wives is acceptable. Or attacking a small country on one's borders is okay as long as it is realised that a bigger country could sweep up your own.

[John]

There are some other puzzling assumptions in the text that I am not happy with. Why does he think that eating meat is not completely compatible with loving animals. I love animals and also love eating meat, and it is not simply the case that I love the eating more than the animals; by love of animals is not in the same category as eating. I just don't see killing animals are bad for them. How many cows and sheep would there be if there were no market for them? None. And is it not the case that under human care they have longer lives and less painful deaths than that dished out by nature or the predator?

Isn't this an argument against intensive factory farming techniques then? If so should animal lovers only eat "ethically" sourced meat where the well-being of the animals, up to and including the point of slaughter, is given high consideration?

[i blame blame]

There is another interesting article in this issue, on being Cool. Some think it is cool to be an atheist and to think there is no right or wrong.

But do they do it because they think it's cool or becasue they think it's true?

My fact situation involves an actual person - Professor Marks - who actually believes "that no human act is inherently right or wrong." You can reasonably assume that he is rational. I did not state a motive or reason for his act, so I suggest that you cannot reasonably assign any other motive (blackmail?) or reason for his act other than the existence of the quoted belief.

What evidence do you have that "belief" (I'd say understanding) of there not being an objective morality compels people to cut little girls throats?

Cutting the child's throat or not cutting the child's throat are equivalent acts in all considered senses.

Really? In al considered senses? Are you not considering the that a person was brutally murdered, the lives of her family and that of "Marks" were changed radically by this?

I put it to you: what are the philosophical implications of this complete fact situation? (assume that it actually happened)

That your "Marks" strawman is batshit crazy?

P.S. Upon what grounds can Professor Marks be distinguished from Camus's character Meursault in his novel The Stranger? I suggest that there are none. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

What evidence do you base your suggestion on?
For starters, Meursault does not experience emotions until after his sentence is read. Since most humans do experience emotion, we can reasonably assume that Marks does too.

I just don't see killing animals are bad for them. How many cows and sheep would there be if there were no market for them? None. And is it not the case that under human care they have longer lives and less painful deaths than that dished out by nature or the predator?

They may have less painful deaths (but in many circumstances, don't), but they usually have much more painful lives, what with them being cramped in tiny cells their entire lives. Increasing the number of a species while treating them like shit is not doing them any favors. Culling wild animals as a measure of population control (with the added bonus of tasty meat) on the other hand might keep them from starving.

[chaz wyman]

There are some other puzzling assumptions in the text that I am not happy with. Why does he think that eating meat is not completely compatible with loving animals. I love animals and also love eating meat, and it is not simply the case that I love the eating more than the animals; by love of animals is not in the same category as eating. I just don't see killing animals are bad for them. How many cows and sheep would there be if there were no market for them? None. And is it not the case that under human care they have longer lives and less painful deaths than that dished out by nature or the predator?

Isn't this an argument against intensive factory farming techniques then? If so should animal lovers only eat "ethically" sourced meat where the well-being of the animals, up to and including the point of slaughter, is given high consideration?

The vast majority of animals are raised in a way that is kinder to their welfare than is nature. Sick animals receive medical assistance, and they are provided shelter in the winter. Having know farmers and having raised a few animals myself it makes good sense to take good care of them.
But yes it is a good argument for ethically sourcing meat.

[chaz wyman]

I just don't see killing animals are bad for them. How many cows and sheep would there be if there were no market for them? None. And is it not the case that under human care they have longer lives and less painful deaths than that dished out by nature or the predator?

They may have less painful deaths (but in many circumstances, don't), but they usually have much more painful lives, what with them being cramped in tiny cells their entire lives. Increasing the number of a species while treating them like shit is not doing them any favors. Culling wild animals as a measure of population control (with the added bonus of tasty meat) on the other hand might keep them from starving.

See my other response. As I say the vast majority enjoy a far better life than any wild species. It makes good sense for a farmer to take good care of his animals. Though I admit that some animals are intensively farmed and this I would rather not see.

[duszek]

Animals bred for food have miserable lives.
It is only different if they are members of the family. An Italian teacher told us that many Italian families who moved from the south to the north took the family goat with them because they needed the nourishing milk and kept her on the balcony.
It is also different if the animals have names and are treated like friends and according to their personalities.

[Empedocles]

But truth-telling remains optional. That is where the untrustworthiness comes in. If all human actions are optional (meaning that none are morally obligatory), the hearer is in a state of uncertainty. I would argue that for the professional politician truth-telling is optional as a matter of principle.[/b]

Truth-telling is optional no matter what one's moral beliefs. A person who believes that telling the truth is morally obligatory might lie. You never know. Maybe they believe loyalty to friends trumps honesty as a moral principle, so they lie to protect a friend.

What you are really asking about is how to tell if someone is trustworthy. Certainly knowing that they believe honesty to be morally required would be a good indication. But so would knowing that they believe honesty to be the best policy for getting on with people and for maintaining one's self-respect. Not morally obligatory, but in one's own self-interest.

[chaz wyman]

Animals bred for food have miserable lives.

This is utter rubbish. I've lived many of my years close to farmers and have kept animals for food myself. This opinion is completely out of the ignorance of townies.

It is only different if they are members of the family. An Italian teacher told us that many Italian families who moved from the south to the north took the family goat with them because they needed the nourishing milk and kept her on the balcony.
It is also different if the animals have names and are treated like friends and according to their personalities.

[Empedocles]

Cutting the child's throat or not cutting the child's throat are equivalent acts in all considered senses.

Well, no, I don't think so. There would be grave consequences for the perpetrator if he actually did such an act. For one thing, he might get caught and punished. For another, consider Plato's argument in the Gorgias: It is better to have harm done to you than to do harm to someone else, because harming someone damages your soul. (And we do not have to believe humans have an immortal and incorporeal soul-substance to make sense of this assertion. The Greek word is psyche, which we still use today to refer to a person's interior state.) The point is, self-interest would lead your hypothetical perpetrator to avoid such acts. Not to mention the inherent empathy all humans other than psychopaths have for others. We do not have to postulate some system of moral rules to account for the situation.

[chaz wyman]

Cutting the child's throat or not cutting the child's throat are equivalent acts in all considered senses.

Well, no, I don't think so. There would be grave consequences for the perpetrator if he actually did such an act. For one thing, he might get caught and punished. For another, consider Plato's argument in the Gorgias: It is better to have harm done to you than to do harm to someone else, because harming someone damages your soul. (And we do not have to believe humans have an immortal and incorporeal soul-substance to make sense of this assertion. The Greek word is psyche, which we still use today to refer to a person's interior state.) The point is, self-interest would lead your hypothetical perpetrator to avoid such acts. Not to mention the inherent empathy all humans other than psychopaths have for others. We do not have to postulate some system of moral rules to account for the situation.

There are no absolute grounds upon which to judge this statement. But it can be refuted quite simply. The acts described are in no way equivalent, what would be equivalent is cutting the throat of a child or another person with the same considered status. Within its own reference cutting or not cutting, far from being equivalent are at opposite ends of the spectrum as defined by the parameters with the sentence. (which is an important "considered sense").
As to whether or not harm would come to a person by cutting throat; if you can imagine a situation where cutting would do good, then there is no absolute moral grounding for not cutting, especially not the gibberish about the soul, eternal or otherwise.

[Empedocles]

... the gibberish about the soul, eternal or otherwise.

Do you have an internal psychological state? If so, is it affected by your actions?

[chaz wyman]

... the gibberish about the soul, eternal or otherwise.

Do you have an internal psychological state? If so, is it affected by your actions?

I am my internal state. It is not separate from me, and I have no reason to think that it is eternal.
It cannot be affected by my actions as if it were on a separate causal layer. To suggest that is cheap Cartesianism, which is so full of holes that it is not worth bean.

And as for this part of your posting....

The point is, self-interest would lead your hypothetical perpetrator to avoid such acts. Not to mention the inherent empathy all humans other than psychopaths have for others. We do not have to postulate some system of moral rules to account for the situation.

It is completely banal! You conveniently divide the human race into 1) empathic beings, and 2) psychopaths. How convenient for you. The fact is that empathic humans can kill and main and cut throats and not be considered as either bad or psychopathic by their peers. And there are psychopaths that show empathy for others. All you have done is caricatured your simplistic view of the human species by your narrow experience and conveniently extended your parochial view from the big state to all human kind. Those critters hed better listen up! Ah got them in ma sights! Prasie the lawd!
Human society is far more complex and hard to pin down. And for many throat cutting can be as much about self interest as the converse.

[Empedocles]

... the gibberish about the soul, eternal or otherwise.

Do you have an internal psychological state? If so, is it affected by your actions?

I am my internal state. It is not separate from me, and I have no reason to think that it is eternal. It cannot be affected by my actions as if it were on a separate causal layer.

OK, let me rephrase the question. Are you affected by your actions?