Your face is morally repugnant to me

14 Comments

1. You ask an interesting question. As an Objectivist, I would have to answer “probably no”. There cannot be an action that is both morally wrong and which does not hurt anyone or does not prevent future goods. At least I don’t see any – in a roundabout way, it sounds to me like you’ve defined a morally perfect action. The problem I see with your definition is that any choice by definition closes the door to a wide range of possible future choices, and therefore future goods. So depending on what you mean, your definition could possibly be meaningless.

2. Objectivism? Surely you jest?

   And arguing ad infinitum is ridiculous, given that we’re finite beings. The utilitarian answer would be from ‘immediately after’ to ‘predictably after’ the event.

   Besides, I’m a dessert-adjusted, pain centric, knowledge-based act utilitarian. The dessert-adjusted portion of that alone takes care of your objection.

3. I understand your point, but I think the ‘Everyone, having full knowledge, would not ever be hurt physically, mentally, or emotionally‘ takes care of that.

   … partially. I understand that a set of chain reactions could conceivably occur because of the act which would have negative effects, which I think Mr. Tremblay was getting at earlier.

   I don’t know, I’d be inclined to say that, in your example, the initial action was moral, but the overblown response was not.

   Assuming you can divorce the twain.

4. Have you read the Platonic Dialogues? I had to read them for my class on Plato, and they were shockingly interesting and pertinent.

   I like your thinking, I do. It’s a rare day when someone can make me rethink what I’ve stated (despite how I came back to my original position). I guess I’ve just grown stubborn in my age… 🙂

5. As a part-time Cynic, I would have to answer “of course there can be.” In my experience, most philosophical discussions about morality quickly tend toward the Platonian ideal of morality and away from addressing the psychological cesspool in which the concept of morality actually exists. “Morality” in human society, is what any group of people agree that it is, and can be defined in a specific manner for wholly immoral reasons, or ulterior motives. For example: Janet Jackson’s barely viewed though much-discussed tit. No child’s head exploded upon seeing it in the stadium. Far more psychological damage was done by THE REACTION to the event, than by the event itself. The whole concept of body shame and modesty has been fostered by religion in order to create an environment of discomfort and shame. This is done for the immoral purpose of damaging self-esteem and creating followers out of potential leaders and/or self-actualizing individuals. This also creates one of several layers of emotional discomfort for the religion to come along and “cure”, temporarily of course. Back to the tit-flash, it is immoral because the audience believed that it was immoral, and was therefore seemingly injured by it. The fact that they were injured only by their belief system itself is irrelevant because this is the state and nature of morality in human society.

6. It would have been more correct for me to say, “It is immoral because *some* of the audience believed it was immoral, and therefore *believed* that they had been injured by it. And, they were quite vocal about their objections. The squeaky wheel gets the grease in this, and other matters of social engineering. The nit I am picking with your premise as stated, though you can probably connect the dots for yourself, is the “mentally and emotionally injured” part of it being caused by the event, versus the perception of the event.

7. Wrote that before I saw your response.

8. There is also a reverse-logic nit to be picked here. You would have to ammend your premise to say, “No one, having full knowledge…” because, in my example, not everyone was emotionally or mentally injured. The problem with that lies in the fact that you now must define a statistically relevant portion of the population, otherwise one hyper-sensitive individual can dictate morality (don’t laugh, it has happened). This definition of statistical significance then puts entire belief systems into question, and begs the question, “where do you draw the line between fanaticism/extremism and ‘widely held’ beliefs, and what criteria, besides mass appeal, should be applied?”

9. I have read the Platonic dialogues, and also the Melian dialogues, though it was long enough ago that I should read them again.

10. Okay, I have noted your bolding of the word “anyone”. Now, of course, you have run yourself up against the problem of, “Is the action morally offensive, or are you too easily offended?”

    If we accept everyone’s opinion at face value, then morality is determined by the weakest link, a.k.a. the most sensitive and opinionated. There is an old Mexican story about an old man, a boy, and a burro that illustrates the problems associated with taking people at their word in the realm of moral outrage.

    In deference to your logic, I find myself needing to restate my position as follows: There is such an action that can be committed that, though everyone had full knowledge of it, and it, of itself, should have no significance in terms of harm or the prevention of good, is morally wrong because an illogical perception of emotional harm has taken place on the part of a confused and prejudiced participant in the event. In other words, Morality is in the eye of the beholder, no matter how decieved that eye might be.

11. Hm.

    As I understand the question you raise, you mean that most or all actions will offend some portion of the population, so my situation is at best improbable (it not offending anyone) and at worst impossible.

    It would be possible to go on a person by person basis, but then we would end up with personal relativism (a concept that would make cultural relativism seem downright logical).

    So, by default, we have to accept everyone’s reactions as valid. So yes, the one person getting offended would mess it up.

    Now imagine an action where not even that person is offended. If it follows all of the other stipulated guidelines, could the action still be morally wrong?

12. Your “personal relativism” comment almost made coffee come out of my nose!

    As I understand it, you have now removed all ambiguity and stated that no one will believe that the act is immoral. Question being, can it still be immoral? I suppose I could split hairs even further by suggesting that some unknown future cultural taboos might one day make the act immoral when viewed through the lens of history… but if we agree that’s going overboard, then I would have to say that you have precluded this from being an immoral act. Since no one even believes that this is immoral, it cannot be immoral.

    Further proof for this argument lies in the fact that only humans (as far as is known) have the concept of morality. Nothing that a lion does is immoral because the lion is only following its natural instincts. Or, to put a fresh backspin on an old chestnut, “If a deaf mime sings in the shower, and there’s no one around to hear it, is he still a mime?”

13. Ha ha, ‘is he still a mime?’ I like it.

    Anyway, I think morality is always going to be a shifty thing, like humor.

    Take, for instance, the “New World” some two hundred years ago when cowboys would kill indians without thinking twice about it. If they didn’t consider their actions to be ‘wrong,’ does that mean that they weren’t? Conversely, if we believe their actions to be ‘wrong,’ does that mean they were?

    If I’m right, that’s a perfect example of what you suggested, so who’s right?

    (about the cowboys vs. us, not me and you)

14. I want to know about the man, the boy, and the burro. Can I find the answer on bestiality.com?