Morality is about rejection of the world
Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion.
True kindness, on the other hand just proceeds naturally. Where it's in short supply, there's little point in trying to dictate it into existence. Although some old sayings do have an impact:
'Be kind, for anyone you meet could be fighting a difficult battle.'
True kindness, on the other hand just proceeds naturally. Where it's in short supply, there's little point in trying to dictate it into existence. Although some old sayings do have an impact:
'Be kind, for anyone you meet could be fighting a difficult battle.'
Comments (49)
Delusion is believing something contrary to fact. Case in point:
Believing that an "is" (fact) can be separated from an "ought" (value) when awareness is both objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-based).
I agree. Kindness that's dictated is false. And the moral picture favors a perfect world.
Quoting Magnus Anderson
No, I wouldn't say that. So not all ought statements reject the world. Mainly it's the ones you would hear in a criminal court.
Quoting Echarmion
Change. The world will change. I'm talking about accepting the world as it is now; accepting life on its terms.
In a way, yes. ‘Ought’ is a sign that one rejects/resents the experience of being hungry in favour of a world without hunger.
But life has no "terms". Life just is. Morality is a part of humans, and therefore also a part of life, that which is. To contrast it with some supposed "natural" state of affairs is arbitrary.
Ultimately, morality seeks to change the state of affairs, and therefore rejects part of it. But morality properly deals with human intentions, not outcomes. So it's not imagining a different descriptive reality, but building a normative order on top of it.
That's true. I refuse to die and prefer to live. But is that resentment? Most importantly, is that something negative? Consider the alternative, which is accepting reality as it is. What happens? I die.
First of all, don’t get ahead of yourself: experiencing hunger does NOT mean I will die. The alternative is accepting the reality that hunger is a part of life, something we can experience many times in our life and even for a prolonged period of time without dying. That is reality as it is.
Having said that, dying is also a part of the universe that we tend to reject/resent in favour of a world that doesn’t and cannot exist: one where we don’t die.
Very Nietzschean. It seems like you're getting close to determinism, no?
I agree with your analysis except for the use of the term “delusion”, mainly because in psychiatry, delusion is something to be rid of. I’m not sure which word would be better, though. I think it’s a NECESSARY delusion.
Perhaps necessary in a host scenarios, but there's something to be said about the type of bearing that things such as 'Ought' statements hold on our psychological health. "I ought to be this", but what if you just aren't? Should we feel ashamed because we don't uphold the principles of some external moral doctrine?
I'm not really sure about the answer.
It depends I guess. If one is powerless to change in a way that they think they “ought”, then one “ought” not get down on oneself even if others do.
I think the lust for justice is part of a system like seed germination, but I only vaguely see how it works and what it's made of.
Maybe nihilism is part of the same system. Justice and mercy are directly at odds. Mercy is a product of forgiveness and acceptance, so it's the bright side of nihilism. Maybe justice and mercy temper one another. Thanks for the Prachett quote, I get it.
Quoting st0ic
I think determinism and free will are matters of identification. If I believe I'm moving my finger, I'm identifying with whatever it is that moves everything. To be a determinist is to objectify everything (including myself).
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I agree.
I agree that that kind of moralizing comes from resentment. If true kindness gives of itself maybe the only worthwhile moralizing is a practical one, delicately removing the impediments that have blocked off access to that source? (One impediment would be righteous moralizing.)
But that process is tricky because its hard to know yourself and to know what adjustments will have what ramifications. Also, building a little hamfistedly off of fdrake's discussion of the seed, its not only internal impediments to remove, but also seeing how you choose (or are drawn to) certain external circumstances which ensure dormancy. Being a person is sometimes as though a seed had another seed around it which not only reacted to certain parameters, but tried to ensure the parameters remained the same (perceptual control theory comes to mind.)
If you're hungry it means that if you don't eat something soon you'll starve to death. You have two choices here:
1) try to find food so that you can stay alive
2) accept death
So what one ought to do? Notice that either choice would count as an ought.
The idea put forward is that every ought is a sign of resentment (maybe even ressentiment?) So whatever you choose, you're being resentful. Which is rather odd, don't you think?
Quoting Possibility
Yes and choosing not to be hungry (by eating) is not a sign of resentment.
Quoting Possibility
And that's not necessarily a sign of resentment either.
In Kantian terms, a separation of hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
You mean, what if you can't be what you ought to be? Nothing. Just accept that you can't be that thing. An ought merely establishes what is the best thing to do if you want to maximize your chances of attaining certain goal. So if you want to be physically fit, you ought to eat properly. That sort of thing.
But, say, I'm a powerful person and I did something bad to someone who is going to reveal something horrible about me which will prevent anyone from cooperating me. I have the means of killing this person and being free of anyone finding out what I did. If it's all about survival, I suppose I ought to kill that person.
You say something that reveals a flaw in me. If I respond by lashing out, we're like two wolves in a wolfpack attempting to establish dominance. Once that's accomplished (by my acceptance of your authority, or whatever), we now know who we are relative to one another. I think that's already happened on my side of things because I trust you.
So maybe moralizing is like wolf cubs exercising their claws and teeth, not to kill prey, but to establish a social hierarchy that allows for sophisticated group activities.
What is compassion?
It amazes me that you honestly believe any experience of hunger is a sign of impending death.
Yes, you have two choices, but they’re not so dramatic as that: eat or continue to experience hunger. Neither of these is an ‘ought’, because an ‘ought’ is not a choice. When you transform a choice into an ‘ought’, this is a sign that you resent having to experience hunger at all. When you equate hunger with death, and view death as unacceptable, then you are heading into moral territory. This, I believe, is the idea put forward.
It means you will die if you eat nothing within a period of one month. That's hardly disputable. Of course, you won't die if you eat nothing for a week, but if you eat nothing for more than 30 days (or whatever the actual number is) you will die. The choice to eat is connected with this fact. Yes, we eat in order to be able to successfully carry out certain tasks but we also eat in order to remain alive (i.e. to avoid death.)
Quoting Possibility
You ought to eat something within a period of month if you don't want to die. That's an ought. Again, hardly disputable. What's strange is the claim that every ought -- which means this one as well -- is a sign of resentment. That's clearly NOT the case.
Ok, but if you actually feel that way, and aren't simply making the right moves in order to preserve an argument, then you're missing the moral sense which you need to criticize morality. You can't criticize music as just modulations of tone if you can't hear what others do.
1) saying that one ought to do something or that things ought to be in some way is not necessarily a sign of resentment
2) morality is not a delusion
That's it.
It is a delusion in the sense that it need not be the case that there are “ought” statements. Other animals don’t seem to have them, and if the universe is completely deterministic, then saying how things ought to be is a form of delusion. It is denying how things must be. If you believe that there is a Categorical Imperative that emerges from living in a community, then it is not delusion. If we have libertarian free will, then it is not delusion.
There are "ought" statements, that's pretty evident. Animals don't have statements because they don't have language -- they don't speak. As for the universe being deterministic, even if it is completely deterministic, it does not mean that "ought" statements have no value. (I have no idea what it means for "ought" statements to be a delusion.)
The OP was saying (as far as I can tell) that the world IS a certain way. “Ought” statements are a wishing of how people want it to be. At least some kinds of “ought” statements are therefore delusional.
So in the case of the powerful man killing the person who might expose him, my gut reaction is 'no he really shouldn't kill them.' What is that should? It's there. It's different than the other shoulds and oughts you mentioned (which are 'hypothetical', in Kantian terms.) It's not that he shouldn't kill them because [x].It's just like, man, he shouldn't kill them (categorical, in Kantian terms.) Two things : You ought not do that because... And : you shouldn't do that, period. They both exist, and if you follow any hypothetical ought (you ought to do this because...) for enough steps, it will always bottom out in a categorical one.
So I was saying salving hunger is one type of ought, decrying injustice another.
Gotcha gotcha. Does a sort of compliance with our actions, say pre-determined ones, come with this identification? I think some compatibilists argue that my freely going along with wherever the universe pushes me denotes a sort of freedom, albeit not the sort that we traditionally attribute to ourselves.
I’m also curious as to what you mean by objectify. As in, reduces our inner experience to tiny little atoms being pushed forward in the same way they are with apples or tractors? I think that we can objectify everything, but still hold that those objects give way to emergent phenomena, such as you and I identifying with our vessel and being along for the ride.
No - that’s still a choice. When you declare it as an ‘ought’ you assume that dying is both immanent and not an acceptable choice. You resent or reject it. That’s okay - I’m not the one saying what anyone ‘ought’ to do.
But being hungry for a month isn’t the same as “I am hungry - I ought to eat.” When you equate an experience of hunger with impending death, and view death as unacceptable, then you are heading into moral territory - you resent/reject reality. The reality is that hunger is a normal experience of living, and that death comes to everyone.
Just because most people don’t want to die, does not eliminate death from our reality. When we accept this reality then there is no ‘ought’, there is no morality - there is simply a capacity to choose.
Let’s start by breaking down this statement:
1. I ought to do what makes me feel good.
2. Giving to charity makes me feel good.
3. Therefore, I ought to give to charity.
The reality we reject here is twofold. Firstly, that we are free to do something that doesn’t make us feel good, for a different, perhaps more important reason. Secondly, that we can stop ourselves, for whatever reason, from doing what makes us feel good. We are not compelled to always and only do what makes us feel good, whenever the opportunity arises.
It is rejecting this reality that creates the ‘ought’, an illusion of no acceptable choice but to give to charity.
“If only I always and only did what makes me feel good, then I would always give to charity.”
Right. So what he's saying is that unrealistic expectations (i.e. expecting things to be the way they cannot be) are delusional. I agree with that. However, the language he's using to express such a simple, tautological, thing is rather convoluted, don't you agree?
If you want people to be alive and happy, you ought not to kill them or otherwise cause them suffering. In Kantian terms, that's still a hypothetical imperative, don't you think?
You may not be motivated by survival (your own or that of a collective) but your "oughts" are of the same kind as those of other people.
Quoting csalisbury
Sounds like something I said elsewhere:
Quoting Magnus Anderson
There's a hierarchy of goals and at the top of that hierarchy there is a goal the choice of which is not determined by another goal.
Goals are not "oughts" and the goal sitting at the top of the hierarchy of goals is not a categorical "ought". "Oughts" are merely statements that tell you what's the best thing to do in order to maximize your chances of attaining certain goal. They can be true (you ought to stop eating junk food if you want to be a good athlete) or false (you ought to be obese if you want to be a marathon runner) but they cannot be categorical -- they are always hypothetical.
Suppose your master goal is for every living being on the planet to be alive and to be happy. This is a master goal because it is not mediated by any other goal. You don't do it because of some other goal. That's not an ought and certainly not a categorical ought. That's just a goal. Now, you say "Humans ought not to kill each other". That's an ought -- a hypothetical one. You say that because if people kill each other people will suffer and die -- which is something you don't want to happen.
Quoting Possibility
Don't focus on the word "want". Focus on the word "ought" and the fact that the sentence is a perfectly legitimate English sentence.
You ought to eat something within a period of one month if you don't want to die.
Quite often, people leave out the large chunk of that sentence and simply say "You ought to eat something". This creates an illusion of an ought statement that has nothing to do with one's wants.
An ought statement is merely a statement of what is the best thing to do in order to maximize the chances of attaining certain goal. That's the definition of an ought statement. Given such a definition, an ought statement that has nothing to do with goals is a logical contradiction.
There will be ought statements, and yes, there will be morality, even if you accept -- and most people do accept -- that death is a part of our reality. Most people know they will die and most people know there is nothing they can do to prevent it from happening. Nonetheless, oughts and morality exist. Naturally, since the two aren't connected.
Exactly.
Quoting st0ic
That's determinism, which is only conceivable in contrast to belief in volition. They're two sides of one coin.
That's really an if-then statement.
Couldn't an ought statement be about something people usually do? "One ought not run up to strangers and punch them" for example. There are exceptions, but by and large, that world exists.
Well. There you go.
Okay, I'll elaborate. It comes across more as philosophy-sounding artistic literature, than an attempt to state the truth in a clear manner with accompanying explanations for each point.
For every single sentence, I'm left thinking, "Why should I accept that?", "In what way?", "How so?", "What does that even mean?", "How come I can think of counterexamples?".
Was this one of those pieces of writing where you think to yourself, "Yeah, that sounds good... kind of Nietzschean...", but in actual fact is full of holes? Kind of like a fortress which looks sturdy from a distance, but on closer inspection is found to be made of cardboard.
Harsh, but true.