Morality - John Locke Institute PHILOSOPHY

This is an investigation into the metaethical and abstract concept of morality. It will break down into two sections: section one will attempt to answer the question who is ‘more moral and how do you know’ cannot not be answered and dissects the ungrounded absolute morals different cultures enforce on individuals through ‘tyranny of the masses.’1 It argues that no individual can measure morality or know with apodictic certainty what morality is. Section two responds to the question ‘should you strive to be more moral? It explains why individuals should want moral progress despite the relativity of morality and imitate the Socratic viri2. The argument in this report has been influenced by the posthumous works of: Mill’s On liberty, Kant’s deontological approach to morality, Plato’s Euthyphro where Socrates exert, his later to be dubbed, ‘Socratic irony’3 on the prophet Euthyphro, and lastly Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals.

The first section of the investigation tries to answer the primary question: ‘are you more moral than most people you know?’ ‘And how do you know?’ However, to answer the question, it is necessary that a secondary question be explored: what is morality?

The article hypothesises that the primary inquiry is unanswerable because the secondary question is relative to factors such as time and culture. The following arguments show this:

The supplementary inquiry has been explored by a wide variety of metaethical disciplines. Philosophers ubiquitously disagree about the nature and objectivity of morality. Western society tends to hold that there are absolute moral facts in the same way as there are scientific ones. Individuals who subscribe to this are moral realists. If moral realism were infallible then morality could be tested so that we can find the foundations for our moral beliefs. However, philosophers hit the grounding problem17 because they cannot find a testable basis for absolute moral facts. Therefore, moral realism is erroneous because there is no unitary morality, which renders the primary question unanswerable because one cannot hold themselves to be more moral than others if others don’t use the same criteria to assess their own morality. An individual’s morality is based on their cultural influences rather than a unitary universal code, which implies morality is not a thing in itself.

Secondly, morals are not black and white, ‘the same things [can] be both holy and unholy’4 Socrates states in Plato’s Euthyphro. He adopts a moral relativist approach: Socrates, using his ‘Socratic irony’3 tricks Euthyphro into exposing that more than one moral position can be right. When Euthyphro says, ‘what is right is that which is dear to the Gods,’5 Socrates then draws the prophet's attention to the fact that Gods disagree and war, and in doing so proves that more than one take on a moral dilemma can be right. This means that individuals cannot hold themselves above others in regard to morality because more than one moral position is justifiable - albeit, that this is only proved in a polytheistic belief system - having no set moral view that is always correct disables individuals from being able to assess morality of others. Additionally, society should not impose the majority's preferred path A on others as the ‘tyranny of the masses’1 should not enforce their preferred version of morality onto individuals, as Mill states when it comes to ‘subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals,’6 society has no right to impose their preferred beliefs onto an individual because they cannot be certain they are anymore ‘correct’. A considerable number believe of philosophers believe in moral subjectivity - a category within moral anti-realism. Moral subjectivists maintain that morality is determined by preference and therefore (because individuals have different preferences) people cannot determine who is more moral. Hence, the primary question is unanswerable as morals cannot be measured unitarily: they are as Mill states: ‘infinitely more complicated.’6

However, Kant took a more intentionalist approach; he stressed the importance of ‘good-will’7 and maintained that the only indicator that an action could be considered intrinsically good was the determination to act in accordance with the laws and morality of autonomy because it would be unreasonable expect humans to predict the future often and accurately - the outcome of their actions. Furthermore, he also states that the right or wrongness of an action is dependent on whether the individual 'Act[s] only [in] according to that maxim by which [..] it should become a universal law.’18 On the other hand, it has already been said that morals are subjective and influenced by the preference of the mass and hence cannot ever be universal. Applying Kantian thought to the primary question would show that no one can see themselves as more moral than another because we cannot know the intentions of another or apply a moral code universally, even ‘law applied to its extreme is the greatest injustice’19 . As a result, the question posited by the essay cannot be answered as one cannot think of themselves as more moral because they don’t know the intentions of others. Furthermore, the question cannot be answered because it would lead to odium theologicum.8 Thus, the primary question should be left deliberately unanswered.

The investigation has found that, regarding another’s ration and morality as lesser to their own, is itself what is wrong and should be avoided. Human beings must see themselves as equal - this is essential to maintaining order which section two explores. This is because morals/moral facts differ from culture to culture, and we cannot impose our Western morality on another and encroach on their freedom of belief. If this moral theory is true, then the outcome would mean every culture’s morality is correct and the ‘tyranny of the masses’1 cannot try to impose their morality on others. Therefore, individuals cannot think they are more moral to another because that individual maybe from another culture and ergo has a different moral code. Kant notes that if they have ‘good-will.’7 then they are acting in an ethical way, and because no one can know, with apodictic certainty, the intentions of others we cannot judge others. Alike Mill’s views in On liberty, if an individual tried to impose their beliefs on people who have different moral facts, then it may lead to different cultures thinking they are superior and developing a hate for the varying ideologies and morals: ‘we risk developing odium theologicum’9. Therefore, one cannot think of themselves as more moral than others because others may have different moral codes, different culture, different preferences and no one can see other peoples, hence what seems moral to one person may be immoral to another, there is no way of proving what is right because these are subjective and based on mass preferences of the mass and can be observed to change over time. Ergo, the inquiry cannot answer the first question posited because there is no answer to the necessary supplementary question.

The next section of the investigation will focus on the question of whether you should strive to be moral despite the ambiguity around the nature of morality. It will argue that man-made morality is needed to maintain order and looks to Nietzsche argument what morals serve a purpose to conclude that one should strive to be more moral. However, the investigation will first examine how the individual can understand morality in order to decide whether one should strive to be more moral. Having established that, it will then cover why the mentioned morality should be pursued.

Firstly, the inquiry would like to question whether society’s perception of morals is useful or harmful. It was not so long ago that it was not only moral but also encouraged to sacrifice a female virgin to the Gods, an action that is extremely far away from what modern society holds as moral today. Though, Kant may Argue, they had ‘good-will’ which he would have stated makes their actions, although misguided, moral. The investigation maintains that if that was the held view of morality, then one should not want to be more moral. How should the individual know what is infallibly harmful and the useful version of morality in order to decide if they want to strive towards moral growth?

The investigation acknowledges that morality is an abstract concept and leans toward an anti-moral realist approach. Having no set right and wrong and proposing that the individual should investigate for themselves what morality they believe is right. The inquest dubs this pursuit: the independent search for truth. The individual should imitate the Socratic viri2 and continuously challenge the accepted morals in order to ensure they are not harmful. As Socrates himself declared ‘The unexamined life is not worth living’10. The individual should fall into a constant search for moral progress and betterment by trying to find fault in what they do believe to ensure its accuracy; they should be dissentients in deciding their morals. Then they can decide whether to be more moral because the individual can claim to understand what is moral and what is not. The investigation cannot say with apodictic certainty that one should strive to be more moral as the individual may find that the morality their society follows is damaging. However, in ruling out the harmful perceived moral codes, the individual can develop a more profound understanding of what constitutes morality and should strive to progress in what they have found. When the individual who has found a moral rule that cannot be criticised, they should strive towards fulfilling that moral action and proceed in continuously being dissentients to widely accepted morality as ‘the fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.’11 In order to decide whether to strive towards moral progress, the individual, even once certain of the validity of their conclusions, must carry on doubting and challenging their beliefs to ensure they adapt to possible new knowledge uncovered through societal development and time. 'If a man will begin with certainties. He shall end in doubts: but if he will content to being with doubts. He shall end in certainties’12. Ergo, the individual must never stop questioning their morals and never just go along with ‘doxa.’15 Despite mortality being relative, society and the individual must strive to continuously eradicate any faults in their accepted moral code and when they have, they should never stop challenging them. Nevertheless, the individual should strive towards their personal moral code established by continual self-criticism of their beliefs.

The investigation can now answer the initial inquiry having distinguished what morality is through the independent search for truth and will now establish that the individual should simultaneously strive for moral better meant and be aggressive in their independent search for truth. Individuals should strive to be more moral, regardless of the constant uncertainty of morals, because having and exhibiting morality is what keeps society from dismally spiralling into chaos, trying to be moral avoids a greater evil. Therefore, society follows morals - because they serve a purpose. Nietzsche would say they are formed from negative historical experiences that demand a ‘rational reconstruction’13 of moral codes to avoid their reoccurrence (like in evolution) and hence they serve a function. Furthermore, pursuing what we think is moral is better than not pursuing it at all because then at least the individual has the right intentions which Kant argues is the only factor with intrinsic and uncompromisable good despite morals changing over time.

Individuals must strive towards moral progression in order to avoid a greater evil which would lead to a chaotic community that could be likened to animals. The only way to ensure society maintains an order is to put in place man made morality. Nature has no natural law as Bentham says that is ‘nonsense on stilts.’16 Hence, it is necessary for humans to create and follow a man-made morality to maintain a peaceful structure. Despite morals not being absolute, the intention to strive towards them helps humanity flourish. Though morality is man-made and no other animal follows the codes, it is the trait that makes humans humane. Humanity would fall into havoc if individuals stopped striving to be moral. As history has shown, individuals given power unrestrained by man-made morality are capable of atrocities. Therefore, regardless that morals change with development over time, not only are moral here for a purpose as Nietzsche states, but every individual should work towards moral betterment in order to participate in the maintenance of the delicate web of a civilised global society and avoid chaos.

In conclusion, one cannot know or hold that they are more moral than any other person, because this belief would lead to harm and chaos, and in leading to harm be dubbed by man harmful. After investigating the metaethical discipline and nature of morality, it has been substantiated that morality is not something that can be unitarily or universally applied. Therefore, it cannot be judged, measured, or grounded. The inquiry into whether an individual can judge their morality in relation to others being higher would be intrinsically wrong and lead to odium theologicum8. However, despite the grounding problem of morals, it is incumbent on individuals to strive towards man-made morals because they are created for an essential purpose and they aid society in functioning.

1 J.S. Mill, On liberty, phrase meaning free pressure from the majority

2 Latin for Socrates’s disciples coined by Cicero

3 Term coined by Søren Kierkegaard to note the use of Socrates’s false flattery

4 Plato, Euthyphro, 8a

5 Plato, Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro at the Porch of King Archon scene

6 J. S. Mill, On Liberty, penguin classics, p.98

7 Unconditional, intrinsic good. It is the determination to act in accordance with the law and morality of autonomy.*

8 Latin for theological hatred

9 J. S. Mill, on liberty, penguin classics, p.66

10 Socrates, Apology, 38 A5

11 J. S. Mill, on liberty, penguin classics, p.105

12 Francis Bacon, the advancement of learning

13 F. Nietzsche, the genealogy of morality

15 greek word for ‘popular opinion’

16 Jeremy Bentham’s Attack on Natural Rights

* S. Blackburn, Oxford dictionary of philosophy, third edition

17 the grounding problem is the problem that we cannot prove morals like we would scientific fact

18 Kant’s categorical imperative

19 Cicero, De officiis

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE :

this essay is a submission for the John Lock Competition details for this can be found here :

https://www.johnlockeinstitute.com/john-locke-institute