At a vigil service this evening for the passing of a friend, the Roman Catholic priest quoted Britain's chief rabbi, who was commenting on the recent riots in London's Tottenham, Brixton, and other districts to the effect that the cause of the rioting started in 1960 when a new era seemed to take over. That would be the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead, the Summer of Love in San Francisco, and the subsequent sex, drugs and rock ''n' roll era that leads up to today. But not the dearly departed; he was a product of the Jesuits and if there was one place that did not jettison the old verities, it was a Jesuit school in San Francisco.
Very good. Yesterday I was reading the musings of a professor emeritus of philosophy, name unremembered, who had given up trying to pin down the source of morality, whether it be God, Nature, Man, the voters, or what-not. He seemed more confused than any philosophy professor emeritus should be at his post-middle-age. Settle on something, for goodness sake, and get on with living, already.
My view is that whether one figures it out, it being a philosophy of living, if not life, there are a few things worth keeping in mind.
Holocausts are bad; so are the people who commit them, and this includes bystanding witnesses and cheerleaders who do not lift a finger in protest.
Some laws are so bad that God commands you to disobey them. The people who turned in Anne Frank's family to the Nazi authorities, condemning them to Auschwitz and death, were not good, law-abiding people.
We need to figure out which laws God wants us to disobey. And if you don't believe in God, and who could blame you, then figure it out for yourself. But watch out. You'll get turned in by the same people who turned in Anne Frank.
The question this raises is this. We have anti-sanctuary laws in the U.S. We have people here who crossed the border illegally in order to live and find work. I don't condemn these people; quite the reverse. There is a sanctuary movement here that wants to send them back home, where they can't make a living, for whatever reason. If I had to jump an imaginary line to feed my kids, or if my parents had to do so to feed me and my sisters, I think I'd want to give them a medal, instead of turn them in as a good law-abiding citizen.
Sometimes in order to be good, one must disobey man-made laws that harm people. Do you agree?
Do we each get to make up our own law?
Who makes the laws? I know, people, but where do they get their moral authority? From God? Which God? Whose God? There are many gods. Do yours count for more than mine? Or does the law come from Nature, i.e. natural law?
I dunno. There may be no universally agreed upon source of law. It's important to disobey the wrong ones, just as it is the to obey the right ones.
My authority? Huck Finn.
"Okay, I'll go to Hell."
For refusing to turn in the slave on their raft floating down the Mississippi, known in the book as "Nigger Jim," with apologies, but I'm damned if I'll try to improve on the words of the master, Mark Twain.
***
Here's the article by the perplexed professor:
Confessions of an Ex-Moralist
By JOEL MARKS
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.
The day I became an atheist was the day I realized I had been a believer.
Up until then I had numbered myself among the “secular ethicists.” Plato’s “Euthyphro” had convinced me, as it had so many other philosophers, that religion is not needed for morality. Socrates puts the point characteristically in the form of a question: “Do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?” To believe the latter would be to allow that any act whatever might turn out to be the “pious” or right thing to do, provided only that one of the gods (of Olympus), or the God of “Genesis” and “Job” in one of His moods, “loved” or willed it. Yet if God commanded that we kill our innocent child in cold blood, would we not resist the rightness of this act?
This would seem to be the modern, sane view of the matter. We have an intuitive sense of right and wrong that trumps even the commands of God. We have the ability to judge that God is good or bad. Therefore, even if God did not exist, we could fend for ourselves in matters of conscience. Ethics, not divine revelation, is the guide to life. That is indeed the clarion call of the “new atheists.” As the philosopher Louise Antony puts it in the introduction to a recent collection of philosophers’ essays, “Philosophers without Gods: Secular Life in a Religious World”: “Another charge routinely leveled at atheists is that we have no moral values. The essays in this volume should serve to roundly refute this. Every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong.”
But I don’t. Not any longer. Yet I once devoted my professional life to studying ethics in the spirit of Antony’s book. The task seemed squarely on our human shoulders to figure out how to act on particular occasions, and how to live in general. Yes, there were deep problems to unravel, but they were subject to rational resolution. Most of my thinking concerned the dispute between the moral doctrine known as consequentialism and so-called deontological ethics: is it the outcome of our actions that determines their moral value, or, alternatively, the quality of the act itself? For example, is a lie that leads to something good thereby permissible, perhaps even obligatory, or would it be forbidden simply in virtue of being a lie? This kind of inquiry is known as normative ethics.
Then there is another kind of motive for doing ethics, more practical in nature. So-called applied ethics seeks to find answers for the pressing moral problems of the day. Can abortion ever be justified? Capital punishment? Euthanasia? War? In my case the plight of nonhuman animals at human hands became the great preoccupation. I could think of no greater atrocity than the confinement and slaughter of untold billions of innocent creatures for sustenance that can be provided through other, more humane diets.
In my most recent published book, I defended a particular moral theory – my own version of deontological ethics – and then “applied” that theory to defend a particular moral claim: that other animals have an inherent right not to be eaten or otherwise used by humans. Oddly enough, it was as I crossed the final “t” and dotted the final “i” of that monograph, that I underwent what I call my anti-epiphany.
A friend had been explaining to me the nature of her belief in God. At one point she likened divinity to the beauty of a sunset: the quality lay not in the sunset but in her relation to the sunset. I thought to myself: “Ah, if that is what she means, then I could believe in that kind of God. For when I think about the universe, I am filled with awe and wonder; if that feeling is God, then I am a believer.”
But then it hit me: is not morality like this God? In other words, could I believe that, say, the wrongness of a lie was any more intrinsic to an intentionally deceptive utterance than beauty was to a sunset or wonderfulness to the universe? Does it not make far more sense to suppose that all of these phenomena arise in my breast, that they are the responses of a particular sensibility to otherwise valueless events and entities?
So someone else might respond completely differently from me, such that for him or her, the lie was permissible, the sunset banal, the universe nothing but atoms and the void. Yet that prospect was so alien to my conception of morality that it was tantamount to there being no morality at all. For essential to morality is that its norms apply with equal legitimacy to everyone; moral relativism, it has always seemed to me, is an oxymoron. Hence I saw no escape from moral nihilism.
The dominoes continued to fall. I had thought I was a secularist because I conceived of right and wrong as standing on their own two feet, without prop or crutch from God. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, period. But this was a God too. It was the Godless God of secular morality, which commanded without commander – whose ways were thus even more mysterious than the God I did not believe in, who at least had the intelligible motive of rewarding us for doing what He wanted.
And what is more, I had known this. At some level of my being there had been the awareness, but I had brushed it aside. I had therefore lived in a semi-conscious state of self-delusion – what Sartre might have called bad faith. But in my case this was also a pun, for my bad faith was precisely the belief that I lacked faith in a divinity.
In the three years since my anti-epiphany I have attempted to assess these surprising revelations and their implications for my life and work. I found myself in the thick of meta-ethics, which looks at the nature of morality, including whether there even is such a thing as right and wrong. I myself had ignored the latter issue for most of my career, since, if there was one thing I knew in this entire universe, it was that some things are morally wrong. It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps. All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.
But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong. But neither are they right; nor are they permissible. The entire set of moral attributions is out the window. Think of this analogy: A tribe of people lives on an isolated island. They have no formal governmental institutions of any kind. In particular they have no legislature. Therefore in that society it would make no sense to say that someone had done something “illegal.” But neither would anything be “legal.” The entire set of legal categories would be inapplicable. In just this way I now view moral categories.
Certainly I am not the first to have had thoughts like these, and today the philosopher Richard Garner in particular is a soul mate. Nor has there been a shortage of alternative conceptions of morality to the one I held. But the personal experiment of excluding all moral concepts and language from my thinking, feeling and actions has proved so workable and attractive, I am convinced that anyone who gives it a fair shot would likely find it to his liking.
One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now.
For instance, I used to think that animal agriculture was wrong. Now I will call a spade a spade and declare simply that I very much dislike it and want it to stop. Has this lessened my commitment to ending it? I do not find that to be the case at all. Does this lessen my ability to bring others around to sharing my desires, and hence diminish the prospects of ending animal agriculture? On the contrary, I find myself in a far better position than before to change minds – and, what is more important, hearts. For to argue that people who use animals for food and other purposes are doing something terribly wrong is hardly the way to win them over. That is more likely to elicit their defensive resistance.
Instead I now focus on conveying information: about the state of affairs on factory farms and elsewhere, the environmental devastation that results and, especially, the sentient, intelligent, gentle and noble natures of the animals who are being brutalized and slaughtered. It is also important to spread knowledge of alternatives, like how to adopt a healthy and appetizing vegan diet. If such efforts will not cause people to alter their eating and buying habits, support the passage of various laws and so forth, I don’t know what will.
So nothing has changed, and everything has changed. For while my desires are the same, my manner of trying to implement them has altered radically. I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. I am simply no longer in the business of trying to derive an ought from an is. I must accept that other people sometimes have opposed preferences, even when we are agreed on all the relevant facts and are reasoning correctly.
My outlook has therefore become more practical: I desire to influence the world in such a way that my desires have a greater likelihood of being realized. This implies being an active citizen. But there is still plenty of room for the sorts of activities and engagements that characterize the life of a philosophical ethicist. For one thing, I retain my strong preference for honest dialectical dealings in a context of mutual respect. It’s just that I am no longer giving premises in moral arguments; rather, I am offering considerations to help us figure out what to do. I am not attempting to justify anything; I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices.
In the process my own desires are likely to undergo further change as well, in the direction of greater compassion and respect, I would anticipate – and not only for the victims of the attitudes, behaviors and policies I don’t like, but also for their perpetrators. But this won’t be because a god, a supernatural law or even my conscience told me I must, I ought, I have an obligation. Instead I will be moved by my head and my heart. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Joel Marks is a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of New Haven and a scholar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University. He is at work on a book called “Ethics without Morals.”
RELATED POSTS FROM OPINIONATOR
Search This Blog
- PREVIOUS POSTNature Without the Nanny StateBy TIMOTHY EGAN
- NEXT POSTHow to Sleep on a PlaneBy VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
The Stone features the writing of contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless. The series moderator is Simon Critchley. He teaches philosophy at The New School for Social Research in New York. To contact the editors of The Stone, send an e-mail toopinionator@nytimes.com. Please include “The Stone” in the subject field.
342 READERS' COMMENTS
This author is truly brilliant, but he does not see that he has tapped into his Divine Brilliance!
So let's imagine a bunch of people on an island. Do they really have to hold formal meetings under Roberts rules of order, in order to have 'laws'? Just cross one of their taboos and see if getting thrown off of the cliff and onto the rocks feels any different informally, than it would with a writ of law behind it. Simp.
And secularists in the Western tradition are so selective when quoting their sacred writings. Socrates wasn't saying that the gods weren't worthy of belief-- he insisted to his death that he believed in the gods, why don't you believe him-- he was saying that it was how the Athenians were practicing their belief that was not worthy of the gods. But then most "religious" people misinterpret their kerygma just as poorly. It seems to be a human condition.
I see two problems with your un-philosophy. One, you are making decisions about the worth of believing in God in an a priori manner that is unjustified by what the New Testament has to offer. Read "Jesus: Lord or Legend" by Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy and Bonhoeffer's "Ethics". Two, you still haven't come to the realization that all meaning is found in the surrender of the I to the service of All. So you say you're honest and less shrill when you try to get your way. Big deal, everybody is honest, when it suits their interests. Even the Buddhists and Hindus know this, though I don't always agree with all of their methodology. So if/when you do go splat, just remember that there is more... bc
why do you feel compassion toward animals? Your reason cannot be rational - you have no obligation to care about others - it's simply an irrational feeling or impulse. That's ok if most of your impulses are generally altruistic, but what happens if they aren't? What happens if, in your next epiphany, you realize you would be happier acting selfishly? You might initially feel guilt at the thought of purely selfish action, but what if, realizing that your guilt is unfounded in morality, you could will it away through meditation or practice?
Not everyone instinctively desires a better world. Some desire violence. Or something they can get through violence. I don't want to live in a world with a lot of violence, so I would want to convince violent offenders to change. Yet how could I, or anyone, do that, if the 'nice' people of the world refuse to adhere to any generally-accepted idea of right and wrong. How could I say "I just do whatever I want, but you shouldn't do the same, because what you want is hurting other people, and you should care about other people because..." because what? Because we're all better off when we all do that...but why should they care about the common good?
It seems that its difficult to teach compassion without teaching morality, if only unintentionally. As children, our good instincts are instilled through lessons about 'good' and 'bad' behavior. I think many adults need those same lessons. Not everyone is smart enough or altruistic enough to over-think this subject without falling into a pit of selfishness.
Also, it would have been nice if you could have at least given a nod to the belief that God is not a creature when talking about normative ethics.
The guiding life principle you seek is love, expressed most importantly as compassion offered to your suffering fellow man, woman and child. This love is present in every moment of our lives. Seek it, feel it, act upon it and you will never be lost again.
We have gotten very soft; no wonder that structures of "right" and "good" are dissolving.
Personally, I increasingly find that the basis of morality is aesthetic. Right thought and action, compassion and benevolence, create in me the same feeling as a sunset, a river in dappled sunlight, the smile of a child. I seek "morality" the same way I seek beauty. And this is in accord with the unfolding beauty of the universe, which is the word and spirit of God.
In the "Tao Te Ching" it says:
'When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.
Therefore the Master steps back
so that people won't be confused.
He teaches without a teaching,
so that people will have nothing to learn."
(v. 72; trans. S. Mitchell)
It's nice to read that you have regained your sense of awe...
Sartre would look at Joel Marks's article and wonder what he was doing in high school. Europeans are indeed more evolved.
And he is emeritus professor, what a joke.
The points he makes are also akin to those made by Legal Realists in the early 20th century, that decisions which seemed to be based in bedrock legal principles actually represent an often complex set of interests and ideologies, not the truth or power of the legal principles themselves. The system of laws is a shell which, like moral values, we manipulate (not explicitly) for all sorts of purposes.
To those who will inevitably say that "we know that X is wrong," I will most likely agree with you, but most certainly there will be someone else who doesn't or some situation which undermines that principle.
At some level this is a political question as well - be pragmatic, not moralistic, if you want to convince someone else of your position. But what if you need to rally the troops for action on an issue? Unfortunately that's where moralism comes in - but let's not mistake it for right and wrong when it's really a political tool.
POST A COMMENTSuggest a Correction to This Blog Post »
You are currently logged in as bobsheridan.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.