An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)

[chaz wyman]

And there are psychopaths that show empathy for others.

This sounds interesting. What psychopaths were evidenced to have some empathy?

You seem to think in black and white. It is not the case that non psychopaths have 100% empathy, and that psychopaths have 0% empathy.
I am a bit horrified that I need to point this out.

]Take Hitler. Many would call him a psychopath, and yet he had major empathy for the German People, and he was well know to have loved his dog and his female partner.

Unfortunately we don't know of any psychologist or psychiatrist who studied him in person. medical NMR devices didn't exist back then. It's possible he had some genuine empathy. It's possible that this would not qualify him as a psychopath in the modern sense. It's also possible that he was a psychopath in the modern sense and loved his girlfriend the way a non-psychopath yuppie might love their car. People close to him said he was not interested in seeing the destruction caused by anglo-american bombers as he travelled thru the cuntry by train in the final years of ww2. This might of course have been an attempt to repress reality rather than a lack of empathy.

Indeed what you say is correct. Of course I chose Hitler as the man most would automatically associate with the word psychopath. I think the point stands. There must be millions of other potential examples. Ghengis Kahn, the Cray twins whose violence is legendary all loved their families. The Cray boys doted on their mother and would not treat kindly anyone they thought might have hinted at insulting her, they were also fiercely loyal to those they thought of as their closest friends. I reject even the possibility that there can exist any person so psychopathic as to have no shred of empathy at all. If you were a neighbour of the Yanomami then you might consider them psychopathic, but within the tribe each Yanomamo has empathy for his children, and fellows.




[/quote]

[lancek4]

I have to apologize, beforehand, for my comment here on "An Amoral Manifesto".
I astounds me that this is considered philosophy. It seems to me more like a tromp on the discursive playground. He situates an arena of discusssion, defines schema of the arena, presents terms of that schema, and then tells how he can resituate meaning in definition, but in the end really says nothing about the topic.
It like I just went on a merry go round.
Has philosophy been reduced to such musings of entertainment? Is this what ammounts to critical thinking now a dayz?
Is ther a significant thought in there somewhere? Indeed he is showing astute ability to manipulate meaning, but what is he really saying? That really there is no morallity but yet somehow there seems to be?

i will try to re-read. I hope I missed something...

[lancek4]

I like tbeiter's (sp?) post...perhaps I missed the tambre of the piece. Time for a re-read...

[spike]

Is Philosophy Now asleep at the switch, because they haven't posted anything new here for some time.

[tbieter]

Here is the second installment from Professor Marks for study and comment:
http://philosophynow.org/issue81/81marks.htm

[Empedocles]

I have several problems with Mark's two-part piece.

First he says morality does not exist, where "morality [is] conceived as a universal injunction external to our desires." But he does not say why he believes morality does not exist. He just goes on about what he is going to do now that he has come to that conclusion. Perhaps he will write something else about what leads him to believe that morality does not exist.

Second he contrasts Kantian deontology with Utilitarianism, and asks "So which ethical theory is the correct one? That is the question that the discipline known as normative ethics seeks to answer." That's wrong. Normative ethics explains what is right or wrong or good or bad within an ethical system. It is meta-ethics, not normative ethics, that investigates the difference between ethical systems.

Third, he does not seem to recognize that there is a profound difference between two ways of speaking about what we ought to do: (a) speaking in terms of right and wrong, and (b) speaking in terms of good and bad. People who think in terms of what’s right think about duty and what conforms to moral rules. I call this the Rightness paradigm. It deals with what is forbidden, permissible and mandatory according to the rules. People who think in terms of what’s good think about the effects of what they do, focusing on what is beneficial and what is harmful. I call this the Goodness paradigm. It deals with what works and what doesn't with respect to broad goals such as human flourishing.

What Marks is objecting to is the Rightness paradigm. I am inclined to go along with him on that, for reasons which I have published on my website and blog.(*) But he does not seem to recognize that the Goodness paradigm gives us very useful guidance for how to live our lives.

-----
(*) See "How to Derive Ought from Is" here: http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=82 and "The Good and the Right" here: http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html.

[chaz wyman]

I have several problems with Mark's two-part piece.

First he says morality does not exist, where "morality [is] conceived as a universal injunction external to our desires." But he does not say why he believes morality does not exist. He just goes on about what he is going to do now that he has come to that conclusion. Perhaps he will write something else about what leads him to believe that morality does not exist.

That would be simple enough. If you were to ask were there no humans, where would this external injunction reside? I submit that it would be nowhere. Do you think he means anyhting more than that

Second he contrasts Kantian deontology with Utilitarianism, and asks "So which ethical theory is the correct one? That is the question that the discipline known as normative ethics seeks to answer." That's wrong. Normative ethics explains what is right or wrong or good or bad within an ethical system. It is meta-ethics, not normative ethics, that investigates the difference between ethical systems.

I would think that the problem would be, given his problem with morality not existing - how could such a question even be asked.
I think it is possible that given Normative ethics prescriptive nature of seeking to how we ought to act, it can help us make a choice between moral systems; in the sense of which one is makes the best choice by which to live. Categories are usually quite fuzzy and ought not to be too rigidly adhered to.


Third, he does not seem to recognize that there is a profound difference between two ways of speaking about what we ought to do: (a) speaking in terms of right and wrong, and (b) speaking in terms of good and bad. People who think in terms of what’s right think about duty and what conforms to moral rules. I call this the Rightness paradigm. It deals with what is forbidden, permissible and mandatory according to the rules. People who think in terms of what’s good think about the effects of what they do, focusing on what is beneficial and what is harmful. I call this the Goodness paradigm. It deals with what works and what doesn't with respect to broad goals such as human flourishing.

What Marks is objecting to is the Rightness paradigm. I am inclined to go along with him on that, for reasons which I have published on my website and blog. (*) But he does not seem to recognize that the Goodness paradigm gives us very useful guidance for how to live our lives.

-----
See "How to Derive Ought from Is" here: http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=82 and "The Good and the Right" here: http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html.

[blackbox]

My denial of moral relativism, however, rests mainly on the unintelligibility of the charge. ‘Moral relativism’ seems to me an oxymoron; for morality in its very concept and essence is supposed to be universal and absolute. Thus, even in the example I just gave regarding killing, morality’s defenders would say that a single imperative underlies the differences due to circumstances, namely, “Thou shalt not kill the innocent” or something of that sort. Moral relativism, therefore, is a strawperson to begin with. But it is downright question-begging as an objection to amorality, since it assumes what the position denies, namely, morality. Amorality cannot be guilty of moral relativism any more than your neighbor could be a goblin. That there are differences of desire, however, is a commonplace.

Isn't he also guilty of question-begging? How can "‘Moral relativism’ seems to me an oxymoron; for morality in its very concept and essence is supposed to be universal and absolute." not be circular? To me it's no different that saying "moral relativism is absurd because morality is absolute".

[usehername]

Isn't he also guilty of question-begging? How can "‘Moral relativism’ seems to me an oxymoron; for morality in its very concept and essence is supposed to be universal and absolute." not be circular? To me it's no different that saying "moral relativism is absurd because morality is absolute".

That is what he's saying. Morality is essentially absolute, and his convictions as an atheist force him to abandon the term and its absolutist connotations. The existence of metaphysical morals is just as dubious as the existence of God.

[chaz wyman]

My denial of moral relativism, however, rests mainly on the unintelligibility of the charge. ‘Moral relativism’ seems to me an oxymoron; for morality in its very concept and essence is supposed to be universal and absolute. Thus, even in the example I just gave regarding killing, morality’s defenders would say that a single imperative underlies the differences due to circumstances, namely, “Thou shalt not kill the innocent” or something of that sort. Moral relativism, therefore, is a strawperson to begin with. But it is downright question-begging as an objection to amorality, since it assumes what the position denies, namely, morality. Amorality cannot be guilty of moral relativism any more than your neighbor could be a goblin. That there are differences of desire, however, is a commonplace.

Isn't he also guilty of question-begging? How can "‘Moral relativism’ seems to me an oxymoron; for morality in its very concept and essence is supposed to be universal and absolute." not be circular? To me it's no different that saying "moral relativism is absurd because morality is absolute".

But in fact absolute and universal morality is, by definition, a contradiction. Morality has to be sensitive to the culture that reproduces each version of it else it is amoral and oppressive.

[blackbox]

OK, I'm objecting to his insistence that morality is essentially absolute, and that moral relativism is therefore contradictory.

I wonder if he rejects aesthetic valuations with the same argument?

I'm hesitant to reject moral relativism because it seems to describe perfectly what we observe... that the values people form about various human situations (abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia etc) vary according to context... they are relative.

Chaz, I must remember your "if there were no people, where would these absolutes reside?" It presents the problem of absolutism so well.

[chaz wyman]

OK, I'm objecting to his insistence that morality is essentially absolute, and that moral relativism is therefore contradictory.

I wonder if he rejects aesthetic valuations with the same argument?

I'm hesitant to reject moral relativism because it seems to describe perfectly what we observe... that the values people form about various human situations (abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia etc) vary according to context... they are relative.

Chaz, I must remember your "if there were no people, where would these absolutes reside?" It presents the problem of absolutism so well.

Thanks. You can ask the same problem when you consider if good and evil have any real meaning beyond the contexted meaning that we put on them. Hobbes said that we do not like a thing because it is good or evil: things are good and evil because we like them or we don't like them.
Humans tend to hypostasize things; make abstract concepts take on a reality of their own.
, as if evil was some force in the world - when this is patently ridiculous. If there were no humans to judge there would be no such thing as good and evil.

[artisticsolution]

"I read about this controversy much later, as a result of fretting about what I should do with my life. I didn’t want to waste it, in case (as still seems likely) it turned out that we only get the one. I couldn’t see how to be sure to use it wisely unless I knew what it was for, so I reckoned I’d better try to puzzle out its purpose. What exactly is any human life for? Is it for expanding scientific knowledge? For helping the suffering? For raising children? For making as much money as possible? For becoming the world paintball champion? So I became very interested in the whole notion of purpose and of whether you can derive a knowledge of anything’s purpose simply from the facts about it, but I kept coming up against Hume’s wretched ‘is’ and ‘ought’. What ought you to do with your life? Nothing about how the world is can possibly tell you. At least, rightly or wrongly, that was how I read Hume and I thought that Hume was correct. There is no objective ‘purpose of life’ to find – only projects we ourselves freely choose. So I decided to just do whatever felt deep-down important to me personally. This turned out to be starting a magazine to popularise philosophy and share my meta-ethical confusion with a wider public."

Rick Lewis (PN Magazine, issue 83)


In other words you chose "Helping the suffering" after all. Oh you helped with the suffering alright, I am just not sure if you helped ease suffering or helped perpetuate it by sharing something as profound as philosophy and "meta-ethical confusion" with a wider public.

I know my little mind has been blown away by your magazine and the forum you created, causing me countless sleepless nights thinking about shit I would never have even contemplated if I hadn't read your magazine.

So thank you very much!

[chaz wyman]

"I read about this controversy much later, as a result of fretting about what I should do with my life. I didn’t want to waste it, in case (as still seems likely) it turned out that we only get the one. I couldn’t see how to be sure to use it wisely unless I knew what it was for, so I reckoned I’d better try to puzzle out its purpose. What exactly is any human life for? Is it for expanding scientific knowledge? For helping the suffering? For raising children? For making as much money as possible? For becoming the world paintball champion? So I became very interested in the whole notion of purpose and of whether you can derive a knowledge of anything’s purpose simply from the facts about it, but I kept coming up against Hume’s wretched ‘is’ and ‘ought’. What ought you to do with your life? Nothing about how the world is can possibly tell you. At least, rightly or wrongly, that was how I read Hume and I thought that Hume was correct. There is no objective ‘purpose of life’ to find – only projects we ourselves freely choose. So I decided to just do whatever felt deep-down important to me personally. This turned out to be starting a magazine to popularise philosophy and share my meta-ethical confusion with a wider public."

Rick Lewis (PN Magazine, issue 83)


In other words you chose "Helping the suffering" after all. Oh you helped with the suffering alright, I am just not sure if you helped ease suffering or helped perpetuate it by sharing something as profound as philosophy and "meta-ethical confusion" with a wider public.

I know my little mind has been blown away by your magazine and the forum you created, causing me countless sleepless nights thinking about shit I would never have even contemplated if I hadn't read your magazine.

So thank you very much!

You know its the best magazine you can buy!!

[spike]

You know its the best magazine you can buy!!

chaz, you don't give the impression you read it.