I saw a video where some news idiot was arguing that there should be the same outcome despite *different choices*.
That's the first time I'd heard someone making it explicit, but it's built into the arguments of many people calling for "fairness". They say that people only made good choices because they had circumstances that led to those choices, and therefore it is unfair to judge people for making the right choices or the wrong choices.
If you look at the world in this way, it becomes obvious why these people are totalitarians -- it's because they don't believe in human agency at all. They believe people don't make choices, they have choices imposed upon them by circumstance, and only by playing God and trying to control all circumstance can utopia be achieved. And yes, that means taking all your money because you're a robot incapable of spending it properly.
I know a guy who continually makes terrible decisions. He's on welfare but instead of spending the money he got for rent on rent, he spent it on pot and funko pops. As a direct result of his choices, he ended up living in a shelter after not paying his rent for a year. Some people think he should not suffer consequences for such actions and will make excuses, but ultimately it is a moral failing that led to his situation, and if everyone had the same moral failing then society would be measurably worse for it.
That's the first time I'd heard someone making it explicit, but it's built into the arguments of many people calling for "fairness". They say that people only made good choices because they had circumstances that led to those choices, and therefore it is unfair to judge people for making the right choices or the wrong choices.
If you look at the world in this way, it becomes obvious why these people are totalitarians -- it's because they don't believe in human agency at all. They believe people don't make choices, they have choices imposed upon them by circumstance, and only by playing God and trying to control all circumstance can utopia be achieved. And yes, that means taking all your money because you're a robot incapable of spending it properly.
I know a guy who continually makes terrible decisions. He's on welfare but instead of spending the money he got for rent on rent, he spent it on pot and funko pops. As a direct result of his choices, he ended up living in a shelter after not paying his rent for a year. Some people think he should not suffer consequences for such actions and will make excuses, but ultimately it is a moral failing that led to his situation, and if everyone had the same moral failing then society would be measurably worse for it.
You're confusing 'ought' with 'is'.
Also a moral failing is when you harm others. It's not when you harm yourself.
Also a moral failing is when you harm others. It's not when you harm yourself.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
I think you might be looking at morality from a different viewpoint than I am, and that leads to your statements.
You can view morality as part of a social contract where you collectively agree to behave in a certain mutually beneficial manner, or you can see it as prescriptions to live a good life. In the former case it isn't a moral failing to fail to achieve moral behavior if it doesn't break the contract, in the latter case you can be all alone on a desert island never to be found and fail morally.
Myself, I believe you have a conscience and a vision for what a great person is, and that there is an inherent value in certain behaviors that make you a better person whether anyone else is present or not.
In The Graysonian Ethic's second chapter "Basics", I wrote:
"There are several ways to look at a personal code of conduct. The first is to look at it from a "I will be punished" standpoint. In this way of looking at things, you are trying to behave in a good way in order to not face the punishment for behaving in a bad way. The second is to look at it from a "I may or may not be punished, but I will know" sort of way. The purpose of a code of conduct and a code of ethics then not being about trying to impress the outside world, but trying to be a person worth being proud of by upholding the best even when no one else is watching. Personally, I think that this is the way anyone should live their life. If getting caught is the only reason why you are following the rules, then you will become a terrible person in the moment that the threat of getting in trouble if you don't follow the rules goes away. By contrast, a person who follows their own code of conduct because it's the right thing to do and they are trying to live up to their own ideals may not just follow the rules when there's no one around, they may end up becoming a moral anchor for others in trying times. People who would otherwise be lost in the storm will realize that they too must do the right thing. This sort of leadership is what you should be striving for."
The entire chapter "My Existential Crisis" talks about this, and the realization that as a human being I have an internal sense of behavior I find awe inspiring or worthy of being proud of, and of behavior I find detestable, independent of the effects on others.
The third from last chapter, "Embrace Shame" also plays with concepts of morality, and it defines morality as something centered around self-control, rather than an inherent virtue of a person being without despicable urges or whims. In this way, it becomes clear to me that based on that, failing to engage in self-control even if it does not affect someone else is a moral failing because the foundation of morality must be self-control. Every step of losing self-control, even if it does not have consequence, is a step towards potential consequence. In that chapter I used the example of someone seeing a pretty girl walking down the street and wanting to have sex with her -- a common thing for most men -- and then joining a rape community on reddit afterwards. Perhaps nobody is harmed, but you have committed a grevious moral failure in the step you have taken.
The idea that you can do anything you want as long as you aren't immediately and directly harming others is in my estimation a product of western pop culture that wants to allow anything and consideres judging others to be the worst thing you can possibly do to another, and does not correspond to any moral system that has ever existed, because you need more than one rule to exist as a civilization.
The super liberal "just don't hurt anyone" wouldn't pass muster in many other civilizations because we are part of our community. Under confuscianism, you have a duty to your family, your friends, your boss, your underlings, your community, and ultimately to the state to play the role your station in life holds. To fail to uphold your role is a moral failing because you're going to bring shame to everyone around you in failing.
The idea that you're a totally atomized individual with absolute freedom to act however you please without any moral consideration for any of your actions unless it directly harms someone else is not really fitting with western civilization past or present, either. Neomarxists even consider racist thoughts to be a moral failing even if you don't act on them, for example. They're considered a failing because there's a moral ideal to hold yourself to, and any deviation from that ideal is considered a failing in any moral system.
You can view morality as part of a social contract where you collectively agree to behave in a certain mutually beneficial manner, or you can see it as prescriptions to live a good life. In the former case it isn't a moral failing to fail to achieve moral behavior if it doesn't break the contract, in the latter case you can be all alone on a desert island never to be found and fail morally.
Myself, I believe you have a conscience and a vision for what a great person is, and that there is an inherent value in certain behaviors that make you a better person whether anyone else is present or not.
In The Graysonian Ethic's second chapter "Basics", I wrote:
"There are several ways to look at a personal code of conduct. The first is to look at it from a "I will be punished" standpoint. In this way of looking at things, you are trying to behave in a good way in order to not face the punishment for behaving in a bad way. The second is to look at it from a "I may or may not be punished, but I will know" sort of way. The purpose of a code of conduct and a code of ethics then not being about trying to impress the outside world, but trying to be a person worth being proud of by upholding the best even when no one else is watching. Personally, I think that this is the way anyone should live their life. If getting caught is the only reason why you are following the rules, then you will become a terrible person in the moment that the threat of getting in trouble if you don't follow the rules goes away. By contrast, a person who follows their own code of conduct because it's the right thing to do and they are trying to live up to their own ideals may not just follow the rules when there's no one around, they may end up becoming a moral anchor for others in trying times. People who would otherwise be lost in the storm will realize that they too must do the right thing. This sort of leadership is what you should be striving for."
The entire chapter "My Existential Crisis" talks about this, and the realization that as a human being I have an internal sense of behavior I find awe inspiring or worthy of being proud of, and of behavior I find detestable, independent of the effects on others.
The third from last chapter, "Embrace Shame" also plays with concepts of morality, and it defines morality as something centered around self-control, rather than an inherent virtue of a person being without despicable urges or whims. In this way, it becomes clear to me that based on that, failing to engage in self-control even if it does not affect someone else is a moral failing because the foundation of morality must be self-control. Every step of losing self-control, even if it does not have consequence, is a step towards potential consequence. In that chapter I used the example of someone seeing a pretty girl walking down the street and wanting to have sex with her -- a common thing for most men -- and then joining a rape community on reddit afterwards. Perhaps nobody is harmed, but you have committed a grevious moral failure in the step you have taken.
The idea that you can do anything you want as long as you aren't immediately and directly harming others is in my estimation a product of western pop culture that wants to allow anything and consideres judging others to be the worst thing you can possibly do to another, and does not correspond to any moral system that has ever existed, because you need more than one rule to exist as a civilization.
The super liberal "just don't hurt anyone" wouldn't pass muster in many other civilizations because we are part of our community. Under confuscianism, you have a duty to your family, your friends, your boss, your underlings, your community, and ultimately to the state to play the role your station in life holds. To fail to uphold your role is a moral failing because you're going to bring shame to everyone around you in failing.
The idea that you're a totally atomized individual with absolute freedom to act however you please without any moral consideration for any of your actions unless it directly harms someone else is not really fitting with western civilization past or present, either. Neomarxists even consider racist thoughts to be a moral failing even if you don't act on them, for example. They're considered a failing because there's a moral ideal to hold yourself to, and any deviation from that ideal is considered a failing in any moral system.