Philosophy Now Forum

Our longtime Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks concludes his special column explaining why he’s abandoning morality.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/81/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_II

I have enjoyed the latest issue's articles on the death of morality.
Of course this relies on a very narrow idea that morality has to be universal and absolute.
Whilst this definition is insisted upon the articles are exposed to a performative self-criticism as the insist that Morality needs to be tempered with Relativism - this would be fine except in the use if the phrase Moral Relativism which, by the original definition, is nothing more than a contradiction in terms. Helpfully the tome of the magazine proceeds with varying species of Amoral Ethicism, to save the day.
The main trust of the articles have invited me to consider whether I can imagine any moral suggestion that is not susceptible to a relative understanding - not even "punching babies" is amenable to assert an absolute moral code. Paradoxically this is a great thing. It forces us to make clear all of our emotional and culturally conditioned ethical positions. This provides a clearer understanding of different cultures and an oft neglected respect for practices in them, and in our own past that we may now find repugnant.

"Moral nihilism
Main article: Moral nihilism
Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Moral_nihilism


Candor suggests that Professor Marks should now acknowledge that his philosophical thought has progressed so that he is now a moral nihilist.

When the baby is covered in napalm and you have no morphine.

That's a great comeback as usual Arising. If science someday discovered that by altering our brain or genetic code they could cure what made people violent so that we would not even consider war or harming one another, would you think the cure to be a good idea for the general public or would you reserve it for criminals in lieu of prison, or would you think it wrong for humanity? Just curious.

Clearly in extreme case there are issues that can twang the heart strings due to the most base of human instincts. But human society has examples of being able to overcome even the most strong emotional and instinctive reaction.
Ask yourself if you could spend $10 a week to ensure that a baby was not punched would you do it? And if not is this any different from punching the baby yourself? Because you have the power to stop a baby being punched right now by sending $10 a week to the RSPCC.
Thus we are all complicit in baby punching.
There are many anthropological examples of morally justifiable infanticide.

So whilst I would never punch a baby - I know that this is not an absolute universal moral principle.

Okay, point made. There is moral relativism. You would never punch a baby...even if it were suffering. However, in your hypothetical situation, where we could pay $10 to ensure a baby was not punched would mean that a few babies would probably be punched if everyone didn't contribute. In that case, I opt for punching anyone who extorted money from individuals who wanted to prevent baby punching or any individual who actually punched a baby. And since there is not an absolute universal moral code in your hypothetical, should I be free in doing so if it is what I want to do?

Chaz,

I don't understand a word you have said here except that you would never punch a baby. Here is my dilemma. Obviously, I am having problems communicating with you. I admit I have a problem with language so you have me there. So since you are the more intelligent of the 2 of us, I would appreciate if you would bring your means of communicating down to my level, since it is obvious it is impossible to bring mine up to yours if I don't have the IQ. It should not be a problem for you however.

The point I am trying to make is...if the entire world forgot about absolute moralism and instead all followed a "morally relative" position. Would you see the laws being basically the same as they are now? Or would there be no laws? Or would we just not mention the word "morality?"

I am asking you very nicely to explain what your position so that I may understand.

I could have just said a parent driven to extremes in trying circumstances. I've not done it but I've felt the flash of rage from tiredness, fear and helplessness.

See...now I have more questions about language. That is sure a justification Arising...but I thought the challenge was to find an example where punching a baby would be justified in reason.

Isn't there a difference between having a justification and being justified?

I've seen that - night after night sleepless tired dry cry cry cry- whats wrong, is the baby going to die, am I , help I'm alone errrghhghghghghg.

Good point.