A special extended column from our (erstwhile) Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/80/An_A ... sto_Part_I
An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
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.
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.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
The professor says...
Why can't morality simply be a contract among human beings, the price tag of civilization? If we pay the price of admission, we are welcomed by the group. If we don't pay the price of admission, we are on our own.
Junior high school kids understand this. That is, oops, until they grow up and go to graduate school.
I dunno, is it just me, or do philosophers often so over think things that they manage to destroy common sense in the process?So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality.
Why can't morality simply be a contract among human beings, the price tag of civilization? If we pay the price of admission, we are welcomed by the group. If we don't pay the price of admission, we are on our own.
Junior high school kids understand this. That is, oops, until they grow up and go to graduate school.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Typist: “do philosophers often so over think things that they manage to destroy common sense in the process?”
Tbieter: Intellectuals often only use their theoretical reason when they should also use their practical reason. Their theoretical conclusions often clash with common sense, or more accurately, with others’ conclusions drawn from their practical reason.
After spending a career thinking about moral philosophy guided by his understanding of Kant, Professor Marks concludes and publicly announces that he now believes that there is no such thing as Morality! In effect, he has publicly repudiated all of his previous writings, i.e., his positive assertions, in moral philosophy. He admits that he was in error! He announces that he is now an amoralist.
Marks is obviously free to believe whatever he wants to believe or not believe. However, I argue that prudence and practical reason suggests that Marks would be wise to keep his new belief in amoralism to himself. People with common sense and good judgement are wary of people who do not believe in right and wrong. They count the silverware and guard their wallet when they dine in the company of a known amoralist.
________________
“In philosophy, practical reason is the use of reason to decide how to act. This contrasts with theoretical reason (often called speculative reason), which is the use of reason to decide what to believe. For example: agents use practical reason to decide whether to build a telescope, but theoretical reason to decide which of two theories of light and optics is the best. Practical reason is understood by most philosophers as determining a plan of action. Thomistic ethics defines the first principle of practical reason as good is to be done and evil avoided. For Kant, practical reason has a law abiding quality because the Categorical Imperative is understood to be binding one to one's duty rather than subjective preferences. Utilitarians tend to see reason as an instrument for the satisfactions of wants and needs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason
http://www.iep.utm.edu/prac-med/
______________________________
Tbieter: Intellectuals often only use their theoretical reason when they should also use their practical reason. Their theoretical conclusions often clash with common sense, or more accurately, with others’ conclusions drawn from their practical reason.
After spending a career thinking about moral philosophy guided by his understanding of Kant, Professor Marks concludes and publicly announces that he now believes that there is no such thing as Morality! In effect, he has publicly repudiated all of his previous writings, i.e., his positive assertions, in moral philosophy. He admits that he was in error! He announces that he is now an amoralist.
Marks is obviously free to believe whatever he wants to believe or not believe. However, I argue that prudence and practical reason suggests that Marks would be wise to keep his new belief in amoralism to himself. People with common sense and good judgement are wary of people who do not believe in right and wrong. They count the silverware and guard their wallet when they dine in the company of a known amoralist.
________________
“In philosophy, practical reason is the use of reason to decide how to act. This contrasts with theoretical reason (often called speculative reason), which is the use of reason to decide what to believe. For example: agents use practical reason to decide whether to build a telescope, but theoretical reason to decide which of two theories of light and optics is the best. Practical reason is understood by most philosophers as determining a plan of action. Thomistic ethics defines the first principle of practical reason as good is to be done and evil avoided. For Kant, practical reason has a law abiding quality because the Categorical Imperative is understood to be binding one to one's duty rather than subjective preferences. Utilitarians tend to see reason as an instrument for the satisfactions of wants and needs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason
http://www.iep.utm.edu/prac-med/
______________________________
Typist wrote:The professor says...
I dunno, is it just me, or do philosophers often so over think things that they manage to destroy common sense in the process?So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality.
Why can't morality simply be a contract among human beings, the price tag of civilization? If we pay the price of admission, we are welcomed by the group. If we don't pay the price of admission, we are on our own.
Junior high school kids understand this. That is, oops, until they grow up and go to graduate school.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
I read it more as a statement on the implications of whether morality was dependent on God.
Marks' conclusion seems, to me anyway, to be that human being can still act ethically even without the concept of morality that religion has given us. So even if we accept the "no morality without God" argument it doesn't mean that life will be worse for everyone and that there are other reasons for us to act in what we might consider the correct way.
I'm basing that on a quick read though so I may be way off the mark. Interesting article though.
Marks' conclusion seems, to me anyway, to be that human being can still act ethically even without the concept of morality that religion has given us. So even if we accept the "no morality without God" argument it doesn't mean that life will be worse for everyone and that there are other reasons for us to act in what we might consider the correct way.
I'm basing that on a quick read though so I may be way off the mark. Interesting article though.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Marks: "For the last couple of years I have been reflecting on and experimenting with a new ethics, and as a result I have thrown over my previous commitment to Kantianism. In fact, I have given up morality altogether! This has certainly come as a shock to me (and also a disappointment, to put it mildly). I think the time has come, therefore, to reveal it to the world, and in particular to you, Dear Reader, who have patiently considered my defenses of a particular sort of moral theory for the last ten years. In a word, this philosopher has long been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t."
John,
I read the above paragraph as a catagorical statement of disbelief in all morality, whether based in a theism or in some other source. Marks believes that no human action is inherently right or wrong.
Tom
P.S. Marks does not define his concept of amorality. It seems to be this definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism . He may, however, be a moral nihilist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
In the article Marks states: “Just so, morality has been the essence of my existence, both personally and professionally. Now it is no more.” I hope that he will clarify this amazing statement in his next article."
P.P.S. I used to correspond with Professor Harry Jaffa, a nihilist professor of philosophy. http://www.mmisi.org/ma/31_01/neumann.pdf
He was fascinating. He had no opinions and never made any assertions. When he responded to my letter, all he ever did was quote his colleage, the noted scholar Professor Harry Jaffa.
John,
I read the above paragraph as a catagorical statement of disbelief in all morality, whether based in a theism or in some other source. Marks believes that no human action is inherently right or wrong.
Tom
P.S. Marks does not define his concept of amorality. It seems to be this definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism . He may, however, be a moral nihilist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
In the article Marks states: “Just so, morality has been the essence of my existence, both personally and professionally. Now it is no more.” I hope that he will clarify this amazing statement in his next article."
P.P.S. I used to correspond with Professor Harry Jaffa, a nihilist professor of philosophy. http://www.mmisi.org/ma/31_01/neumann.pdf
He was fascinating. He had no opinions and never made any assertions. When he responded to my letter, all he ever did was quote his colleage, the noted scholar Professor Harry Jaffa.
John wrote:I read it more as a statement on the implications of whether morality was dependent on God.
Marks' conclusion seems, to me anyway, to be that human being can still act ethically even without the concept of morality that religion has given us. So even if we accept the "no morality without God" argument it doesn't mean that life will be worse for everyone and that there are other reasons for us to act in what we might consider the correct way.
I'm basing that on a quick read though so I may be way off the mark. Interesting article though.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Marks: “I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality.”
tbieter: I disagree with Professor Marks. I suggest that Morality exists as a being of reason, instantiated in an ideal of right and wrong actions in human conduct.
"Morality
It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life. Thus Mr. Hobhouse has well said:
"The comparative study of ethics, which is apt in its earlier stages to impress the student with a bewildering sense of the diversity of moral judgments, ends rather by impressing them with a more fundamental and far-reaching uniformity. Through the greatest extent of time and space over which we have records, we find a recurrence of the common features of ordinary morality, which to my mind at least is not less impressive than the variations which also appear" (Morals in Evolution, I, i, n. 11).
Plainly this uniformity regards principles rather than their application. The actual rules of conduct differ widely. While reverence to parents may be universally acknowledged as obligatory, certain savage tribes believe that filial piety requires them to despatch their parents when the infirmities of old age appear. Yet making allowance for all such diversities, it may be said that the common voice of the race proclaims it to be right for a man to reverence his parents; to care and provide for his children; to be master of his lower appetites; to be honest and just in his dealings, even to his own damage; to show benevolence to his fellows in time of distress; to bear pain and misfortune with fortitude. And only within comparatively recent years has anyone been found to deny that beyond this a man is bound to honour God and to prefer his country's interests to his own. Thus, indeed, the advance of morality lies not so much in the discovery of new principles as in the better application of those already accepted, in the recognition of their true basis and their ultimate sanction, in the widening of the area within which they are held to bind, and in the removal of corruptions inconsistent with their observance."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm
tbieter: I disagree with Professor Marks. I suggest that Morality exists as a being of reason, instantiated in an ideal of right and wrong actions in human conduct.
"Morality
It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life. Thus Mr. Hobhouse has well said:
"The comparative study of ethics, which is apt in its earlier stages to impress the student with a bewildering sense of the diversity of moral judgments, ends rather by impressing them with a more fundamental and far-reaching uniformity. Through the greatest extent of time and space over which we have records, we find a recurrence of the common features of ordinary morality, which to my mind at least is not less impressive than the variations which also appear" (Morals in Evolution, I, i, n. 11).
Plainly this uniformity regards principles rather than their application. The actual rules of conduct differ widely. While reverence to parents may be universally acknowledged as obligatory, certain savage tribes believe that filial piety requires them to despatch their parents when the infirmities of old age appear. Yet making allowance for all such diversities, it may be said that the common voice of the race proclaims it to be right for a man to reverence his parents; to care and provide for his children; to be master of his lower appetites; to be honest and just in his dealings, even to his own damage; to show benevolence to his fellows in time of distress; to bear pain and misfortune with fortitude. And only within comparatively recent years has anyone been found to deny that beyond this a man is bound to honour God and to prefer his country's interests to his own. Thus, indeed, the advance of morality lies not so much in the discovery of new principles as in the better application of those already accepted, in the recognition of their true basis and their ultimate sanction, in the widening of the area within which they are held to bind, and in the removal of corruptions inconsistent with their observance."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
The problem is making sure the 'removal of corruption' isn't more immoral than the 'immorality' that it tries to defeat. Because then you have a bigger problem than just immorality...then you have a topsy turvy world of moral confusion....oh wait...we are already there...tbieter wrote:Marks: “I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality.”
tbieter: I disagree with Professor Marks. I suggest that Morality exists as a being of reason, instantiated in an ideal of right and wrong actions in human conduct.
"Morality
It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life. Thus Mr. Hobhouse has well said:
"The comparative study of ethics, which is apt in its earlier stages to impress the student with a bewildering sense of the diversity of moral judgments, ends rather by impressing them with a more fundamental and far-reaching uniformity. Through the greatest extent of time and space over which we have records, we find a recurrence of the common features of ordinary morality, which to my mind at least is not less impressive than the variations which also appear" (Morals in Evolution, I, i, n. 11).
Plainly this uniformity regards principles rather than their application. The actual rules of conduct differ widely. While reverence to parents may be universally acknowledged as obligatory, certain savage tribes believe that filial piety requires them to despatch their parents when the infirmities of old age appear. Yet making allowance for all such diversities, it may be said that the common voice of the race proclaims it to be right for a man to reverence his parents; to care and provide for his children; to be master of his lower appetites; to be honest and just in his dealings, even to his own damage; to show benevolence to his fellows in time of distress; to bear pain and misfortune with fortitude. And only within comparatively recent years has anyone been found to deny that beyond this a man is bound to honour God and to prefer his country's interests to his own. Thus, indeed, the advance of morality lies not so much in the discovery of new principles as in the better application of those already accepted, in the recognition of their true basis and their ultimate sanction, in the widening of the area within which they are held to bind, and in the removal of corruptions inconsistent with their observance."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
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.
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.
-
i blame blame
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:26 am
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
A study has shown that those who view themselves as particularly moral tend to act more immorally than those who don't.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=254
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=256
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=257
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=254
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=256
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=257
Last edited by i blame blame on Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Aetixintro
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
- Contact:
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Like I believe that! I begin to count all the religious people and the whole bunch of humanists! I just suspect that the most morally people are the ones who can't recognise morality altogether!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, hai blame blame wrote:A study has shown that those who view themselves as particularly moral tend to act more immorally than those who don't.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
In this issue there is also an article about the aesthetics of being cool. As it implies, it's not generally cool to be amoral but one can appear cool in pushing the boundaries of morality.
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Really ? Why is it so ?
First I try to understand: if someone does not care about the established convetions and moral rules and sets his own ones he impresses me as an independent and freely thinking spirit and therefore I admire him for his ... cold blood ?
First I try to understand: if someone does not care about the established convetions and moral rules and sets his own ones he impresses me as an independent and freely thinking spirit and therefore I admire him for his ... cold blood ?
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Perhaps you too are thinking of Bonnie and Clyde.
-
i blame blame
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:26 am
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
Here's some evidence:Aetixintro wrote:Like I believe that! I begin to count all the religious people and the whole bunch of humanists! I just suspect that the most morally people are the ones who can't recognise morality altogether!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, hai blame blame wrote:A study has shown that those who view themselves as particularly moral tend to act more immorally than those who don't.
http://www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedin ... teague.doc
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510506
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... rites.html
Are there any studies that refute this?