Omveltning av alle verdier del I – De-evaluation

There is no wrong morality. Philosophy of morality has to deal with life and not reason – with the real and not the ideal. As mentioned in Morality and Reason, a purely abstract philosophy of morality that is interested in absolute truth (not just relative to some assumptions) will always be stillborn. Only by our belief in truth have we been able to prove it, but, in such a secular world, most agree: belief is no proof. For the abstract philosophy, I can say: to call a morality wrong is to make a moral judgment, and so one needs a morality to comment on the rightness of morality, but no morality can comment on itself.

The last phrase above inadvertently describes something real. Since I have made the ludicrous claim that there are no wrong morals, I can keep beating a dead horse in good conscience (for those with a harm-based morality: it is already dead, I am doing no harm). We do not comment on our own morality: it is always the true morality; our morality. We feel it. That is why we do not question it. Our reason follows it, not creates it. Try to choose a different morality than the one you have. Then you will find, that you cannot choose morality.

You never chose your morality. No one else did it either. Take this to your heart, when you label someone as having poor morals; as being immoral – or even evil. They never chose it. Is placing blame on someone who has not and could not choose alright by your morality?

I will answer the last question for you: if placing blame comes naturally, then yes. If it feels correct, but contradicts some principle one has, then, it is the principle that is not part of one’s morality. I will make one more claim: people do not know their own morality. Maybe it feels both correct and wrong at the same time. Welcome to the contradictory world of human morality.

Am I claiming that our morality is somehow just what we feel? Yes – but one should not use the word “just”. No other morality existed – at least not that we could actually follow (and what is it then?). How else could Kant make his ridiculous arguments for his morality if there was not some natural appeal to it, or emotional conviction? Surely, his reason could not be that unreasonable by itself.­­­­­­­

Only by one’s own morality is one’s morality moral. As a thought experiment we should do the impossible: dispense of egocentric world-view and consider all moral systems as equal. Not even of equal value, but consider them coolly: without the concept of value.

One can argue day and night about some ideas being more beneficial – but benefit must always be measured against a goal. This goal comes from one’s morality. The arguments for why something is beneficial are in truth attempts at trying to rationalize one’s morality – but no morality can comment on itself. Maybe it is yours morality or mine that is detrimental to humanity?

The goal is now not to find a ‘right’ morality, but to discover the nature of our morality. We are seeking the “is” – not the “ought”.

To be continued…

See also:

Between Judging and Insight

Morality and Reason Reason is a tool of emotion

The Hardest Thing in the World (in particular the discussion)

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Omveltning av alle verdier del I – De-evaluation

  1. Pingback: Omveltning av alle verdier del II – The Is and the Ought | Interactive philosophy

  2. Pingback: Immorality of Morality | Interactive philosophy

What do you think? Leave a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s