fozz
1yr ago
I understand the is/ought distinction, thank you.
Then why do you keep saying things that prove otherwise?
I am pointing out that the morality you describe is so foreign to most humans that calling it “obvious” is presumptuous at best.
It's obvious in the way I said it was:
Me: It's only because conscious experience exists that morality exists; it's only by rationally thinking through the implication of this that you can participate in morality. The moral way of assessing value is by measuring the capacity to suffer, or the other end, experience happiness/flourishing. And it's when you do that you realize there is no (unselfish) basis to place a higher value on anyone. You'll see that it's only your selfishness that blinds you to this simple truth.
If you can't see it's obvious that all people are of the same value, it's just selfishness. Like, you've been deluded into thinking your Self is privileged, and other people are privileged because of their proximity to your Self. This is obviously immoral, enforced by evolution & culture.
Again, if you had to choose to either save a starving child's life, or have a high thread count duvet cover and heated seats, and you choose the luxuries instead of the child's life and welfare, then you are a selfish coward. And that is what you (and I) are doing. Not theoretically. We're actually choosing to do it in the real, concrete world.
I’m sure you can find examples of principled equal-opportunity altruists, though I suspect many historical examples were motivated by religious and ascetic principles somewhat misaligned with yours. I said statistically zero.
I won't quibble about numbers here. My point was only that it's not at all impossible. But it's certainly not popular.
fozz
1yr ago
I told you, if you mean “in the eyes of god” or taking the view from nowhere or some other abstraction, then sure, a person’s proximity to me does not affect their moral value.
This completely at odds with this:
It does, however, change my moral duties toward them, for a host of social, moral, and practical reasons.
3 million children really, actually die of starvation each year. Real children. You can literally, truly, concretely, actually save a number of their lives. Say, 10 lives. Just by forgoing insanely lavish luxuries that we all treat "middle class" in the West. You wouldn't even have to forfeit your life, just a bunch of your stuff.
Saying "it's not my moral duty" makes no sense. No one is going to assign this duty to you. Reason makes your "duty" self-evident.
If you want to participate in morality, you need to acknowledge "a person’s proximity to me does not affect their moral value" as you did above, and then engage in the process of treating them as if they have the same moral value as you. By keeping them from suffering, aiding their happiness, etc. It's your "duty."
If you acknowledge "a person’s proximity to me does not affect their moral value," and yet do not make the appropriate changes to act on what you know, then you are a hypocrite, and a selfish coward.
I am a hypocrite, and a selfish coward too.
Acknowledging this is useful if it leads to action.
Love it. Probably the best example, and it's good to examine these limit cases.
I agree you have a special moral relationship to your children, as you made the choice to give them consciousness.
I'm an antinatalist, so I don't think we should have children. Having children is creating the (near certain) potential for (significant) suffering without the consent of the sufferer.
Apart from your unique responsibility to them because you chose to give them consciousness, your children are not owed any more of your moral "duty" than any other child. That you feel you owe them more is just a result of biology and culture.
There is no moral difference between your child and some child on the other side of the globe. Both are having a conscious experience and are capable of suffering & happiness.
If you want to participate in morality, which is engaging in the process of having positive effects on the conscious experiences of others, then you'll recognize privileging family and friends over strangers, even enemies, is nothing more than an evolutionary survival strategy with a little fondness of familiarity on top. It's utterly Self-centered, amoral, and leads to many problems.
If you disagree, and you’d like to change my mind, you could chill with calling everyone selfish cowards blind to your obvious correctness.
I'm a selfish coward. That's the plain language for what I am based on what I'm doing.
I should give my resources, at least above subsistence, to save the lives of starving children. That is the correct moral action.
I am a coward for failing to do so. That is, I am too scared to proceed with what I have reasoned is morally right.
And my fear is based on my desire to preserve the Self. I am selfish. Obsessed with Self, to the point I will let children starve rather than deny my Self.
Using less plain and direct language is just a tactic people use to preserve their delusions.
It's lying.
fozz
1yr ago
Asking people to choose to forgo unnecessary luxuries so that starving children can eat has nothing to do with being a sociopath.
A narcissistic sociopath might try to pretend this was an unreasonable request for whatever reasons a mind like that might manufacture.
Why do you personally think it's more important for a person to have unnecessary luxuries than for a starving child to eat?
Again, is/ought. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Roughly, yes. "God" being, similar to what you said, some kind of abstraction of a universal ethic.
This is all false.
There are people who've given their lives for strangers. There are people who've donated organs to strangers. There are people who've sold all their possessions above subsistence and give it to strangers. People who give all their income above subsistence to strangers.
More options
Context Copy link