Moral dissonance
Ethical nihilism, why not? That’s a question I spend time analysing, like a pop punk song stuck on repeat in the back of my head. Because I maintain a way to much faith in humanity. Here’s my manifest contradiction:
Morality is a social construct.
I should be sensitive to, and respect the other.
The other has some BS notion of morality.
Do I respect their morality, or do I do what I see fit?
Obviously my own morality is subject to the same constructivism, which is why it is that much more pertinent that I respect the morality of the other. Outside of the social, morality takes on very little relevance – we are moral to be sociable: to be accepted by, and function within the social. Morality is a social gesture, and to simply abide by your own morality isn’t likely to get you very far as a social being; arguably it defeats the whole purpose of what it means to be moral. But do I blindly except the morality of the other? Fuck no, because it’s a crock of shit – at least generally speaking. Most of the time it’s simply used as a tool for internalizing oppression. So I suppose I’m shit out of luck. At what point do I transcend (dismount?) my idealism and say – “You know what? I don’t give a shit what you think because you’re wrong!” Finally, there’s also the Dogville paradox, in which my accepting the other and all it’s shortcomings, and play their petty games for their sake (out of respect?), comes off even more contrived and condescending then just being an egocentric prick.
Morality is a social construct.
I should be sensitive to, and respect the other.
The other has some BS notion of morality.
Do I respect their morality, or do I do what I see fit?
Obviously my own morality is subject to the same constructivism, which is why it is that much more pertinent that I respect the morality of the other. Outside of the social, morality takes on very little relevance – we are moral to be sociable: to be accepted by, and function within the social. Morality is a social gesture, and to simply abide by your own morality isn’t likely to get you very far as a social being; arguably it defeats the whole purpose of what it means to be moral. But do I blindly except the morality of the other? Fuck no, because it’s a crock of shit – at least generally speaking. Most of the time it’s simply used as a tool for internalizing oppression. So I suppose I’m shit out of luck. At what point do I transcend (dismount?) my idealism and say – “You know what? I don’t give a shit what you think because you’re wrong!” Finally, there’s also the Dogville paradox, in which my accepting the other and all it’s shortcomings, and play their petty games for their sake (out of respect?), comes off even more contrived and condescending then just being an egocentric prick.
posted by Nicholas @ 3.4.06
4 Comments:
"Morality is a social gesture, and to simply abide by your own morality isn’t likely to get you very far as a social being; arguably it defeats the whole purpose of what it means to be moral."
What is the purpose of being moral? It evolved, of course, because it's useful for our survival. A group of people without any camraderie and sense of duty to one another is up the creek without a paddle when it comes into contact with a society that's unified and supportive of each other. Why do individuals take it up, tho? I think it just makes us happy, and I think it can continue to make us happy even if we accept that it's just a construct, meaning that "Murder is wrong" is the same as "I don't like murder". At least I am not bothered by that idea.
"But do I blindly except the morality of the other?"
Obviously not.
I don't see what your whole problem is with morality and our differing conceptions of it. Do what you want to do, and if people don't like it they'll react however they would like to act. With some knowledge of what other people are like, and how they are likely to act, you can make more informed decisions about how you would like to act, taking the reactions your actions are likely to cause into the determination of whether you'd like to act in such a way or not.
I sincerely doubt I said anything you didn't know, but I don't really understand where your crisis lies.
-ADAM SCOTT ROSEN
i think the problem for me is my tendency to want to care for the other unconditionally. essentially i've integrated this into my own preffered morality -- but what when something in the other's morality is in opposition to my own notions of morality. either A) the other trumps all and i reject whatever it is that stands in opposition, or B) i reject my unconditional acceptence of the other.
hypothetically i could go with A) but only for the time being, or until i find myself in another social circumstance. this then seperates my morality into two moral orders -- with the unconditional care for the other as the highest order.
Obviously you should reject unconditional acceptance of the Other. ;)
Dude, like it's just a ridiculous idea. Your acceptance of the Other is NOT unconditional, nor could it possible be. You will necessarily, knowing about the Other, know SOMETHING about the Other. Or at the very least, have ideas or ponderings thereabout.
Your acceptance doesn't live in a vacuum, is what I think, and it's your ideas, namely hopes and aspirations for others, that I think makes you want to put unconditional acceptance into your personal morality.
A part of me likes what I think you're trying to do, but I don't think you're really backing it up. I mean what the Hell is this idea that when your morality and other peoples' comes into conflict you just drop yours?
Firstly, that's ridiculous, the constitution of a will to do whatever anyone else tells you to.
Secondly, I deny that the world may be broken up solely into dichotomies, so what if someone has a different idea of what is the moral way to behave than you? There's likely a proliferation of alternative morals, which do you choose?
Basically, what I'm saying is, unconditional care = lame. It's like a whiny kid, and I'm not calling you whiny kid, in complaining "It's not good enough that things be valuable to me only from me." I'm not saying that things can't be valuable in-themselves or from other people in-themself (on second thought, does that make any sense?) but that's not my experience of the world.
It's nearly five am, thanks for the link chief-O!
-ADAM SCOTT ROSEN
part of me is playing devils advocate -- i'm already well on my way in rejecting B).
"I mean what the Hell is this idea that when your morality and other peoples' comes into conflict you just drop yours?"
This is where the tension lies -- a morality for me, and unto myself has little practical application. It only takes on reason in those instances where it happens to coincide with other's morality. arguably when this isn't the case i move on to greener pastures -- if this other's morality is in conflict, another other's may not. but if i value the current other with which there is conflict greater than the hassle it might take to find another, maybe i stay and adjust my own. i dunno.
above i leapt from first order other, the Other (transcendental?) -- or everything other then self, to second order other, the other, or social, which is limited by the breadth of my field -- can i do this? in the latter case i can pragmatically engage the other. is this observation significant?
Post a Comment
<< Home