The justification of moral judgment

[Simon Anders]

So I ask:

I am not sure if rights is the right way to go about this. That was a gut, quick reaction. I don't know if legal or barter outlooks are good ones for this.

Let me jump to a related issue:

One can do good things, but simply to be good. To be correct and good, but have very little warmth of heart or understanding of the consequences of one's actions or consequences.

Not stealing, simply to be a good person....
I am not sure this should give one the 'right' to anything.

 

[Oli]

Um okay, how can I justify myself as moral to myself if I demand that other people live up to my morality?

 

[Simon Anders]

Um okay, how can I justify myself as moral to myself if I demand that other people live up to my morality?

(sorry, I know I tangented you. I am resisting coming down with one position because I think there are hidden complexities here. but now I will try to answer your question)

I assume you meant above 'in situations where I do not do what I expect others to do.' But maybe not....

Going on that assumption, I think as long as one is trying to face things and change them - or get to the roots of them so they dissolve on their own - I think one should certainly be free to react to the immoral acts of others. I think there is a distinction between reacting and 'seeing to it that they change or desist'.

I think with my wife for example, the kinds of annoying to immoral acts that come up in an argument are subtle and complicated and context hinged and it would be counterproductive for me not to react to things in her that I might be guilty of also. I should not be content when I notice this or she or someone else points this out.

I am resistant to the freeze. 'Oh, I do this, I cannot react when she does.' That seems to keep us all in one place. While I run around trying to be consistant AND stifling myself AND not really getting to a real, less obnoxious communication, but rather trying to win.

 

[Oli]

I think there are hidden complexities here.

Far more than either of us would care to deal with I think

I assume you meant above 'in situations where I do not do what I expect others to do.' But maybe not....

Not, actually.It's the reverse and deepr - possibly to the state of paralysis.

In the end I have to justify myself to me.
So I try to live up to what I consider moral and honourable.
But why should I/ how can I expect others to live up to my morality when I'm defining morality for me.
I must grant them the same privilege/ right/ freedom to define their own morality, which may not match mine at all.
So can I call them immoral and still justify myself to me?
Expecting someone else to live up to my defintion of morality is hypocrisy from the start - I'm not crediting them their own concept of morality.

 

[Simon Anders]

Far more than either of us would care to deal with I think


Not, actually.It's the reverse and deepr - possibly to the state of paralysis.

In the end I have to justify myself to me.
So I try to live up to what I consider moral and honourable.
But why should I/ how can I expect others to live up to my morality when I'm defining morality for me.
I must grant them the same privilege/ right/ freedom to define their own morality, which may not match mine at all.
So can I call them immoral and still justify myself to me?
Expecting someone else to live up to my defintion of morality is hypocrisy from the start - I'm not crediting them their own concept of morality.

I think there is a strong practical sense in which I agree with you. I certainly have outbursts where I point the finger of moral condemnation, but I have found myself, generally, more comfortable, trying to point out to others 1) how they do not live up to their own stated morals and 2)pointing out the unjustified assumptions they are making.

I feel like this 1) feels better 2) dispels the illusion that we are 'really' the same, but they are simply confused - an illusion which I think other kinds of moral discussion can foster.

I have to mull on this.

This may sound a little odd, but here's why I like this better:
in the past there was more of an assumption on my part that I needed to make them better.
Now it feels like I need to get them to stop killing me and the earth, etc.
The latter does not include the assumption that I need to change their minds. I think 'they' are dependent on me for their existence and power. I am not sure how much hocus pocus this is or how much is simply psychology, but it feels much better.
I am refusing to participate rather than seeking to change them.

 

[Oli]

No no no.
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
I cannot condemn anyone on any grounds (okay I do and then feel guilty) because to point the finger would mean that I'm judging them by MY standards and not theirs.
And if I allow myself my standards (rather than live up to someone else's) then surely i should let other people have their own morality and not mine?

 

[Simon Anders]

No no no.
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
I cannot condemn anyone on any grounds (okay I do and then feel guilty) because to point the finger would mean that I'm judging them by MY standards and not theirs.

I think I got that. I am judging them on their standards.

And if I allow myself my standards (rather than live up to someone else's) then surely i should let other people have their own morality and not mine?

I think you need to reread my post. I was highlighting what I thought was a similarity and I think I get this. I do not think of it in these terms, but practically I think we are similar here.

AGain-
I attack them for being inconsistant with their own morality
and
I attack their assumptions.

To do the former is not to expect them to live up to my morality - except at a meta level, but they generally believe in consistancy also. To do the latter is not to say they should live up to my standards but rather that they have build up their standards or attacks on mine on assumptions they will not be comfortable with once I have had my say - all going well that is.

 

[Oli]

AGain-
I attack them for being inconsistant with their own morality

Ah, here is where the confusion lies.
I'm talking about everyday life, where people don't generally state their morality.

I attack their assumptions.

I challenge, not sure about attack.
But I do it my own way.

but they generally believe in consistancy also.

They may say they believe in consistency, and may even believe it.
But does their behaviour indicate that to be true?

attacks on mine on assumptions they will not be comfortable with once I have had my say

Yeah, but I think that's one of the other complexities, or a whole other subject.

 

[Simon Anders]

and by the way. I see this as more defensive than offensive. It is to get them off me or off someone else. (I realize that this notion of defensive could be a self-serving one, but there it is....)

 

[Simon Anders]

Ah, here is where the confusion lies.
I'm talking about everyday life, where people don't generally state their morality.

Ah, OK. But actually, in close relationships, I think they do. Perhaps no directly as in 'I believe _________ and you are bad because you_______' but in what they demand or get mad about, etc.

I challenge, not sure about attack.
But I do it my own way.

The word came and I cringed but there it was.

They may say they believe in consistency, and may even believe it.
But does their behaviour indicate that to be true?

No. But I would love it if they would say 'I don't believe in consistancy.'

I think at root I have a sense that something parasitical has 'been in charge'. And this parasitical group(s) has needed my involvemen in buying their morality - and the indirect implication that they are moral. This morality can come through people who are not the creators of this morality so it does come up, all the time, day to day. So the live and let live aspect of this is that I truly do not care if they want to live the way they call moral. I do not expect them to live up to my morality. I want them to go away. I think by taking away their food - my buying into their assertions - they will go away. So I am trying to make them good - by my standards - but maintaining my integrity in the face of them.

 

[oiram]

In fact, it seems like this is much of what happens and those who rise to power are often blissfully unaware of how similar they are to what they hate.

I couldn’t agree more with this statement

This is when morality becomes hypocrisy and there are too many examples of this to even site, although Elliot Spitzer comes to mind as an example.

Speaking on this further I have also noticed another twist on this where as people who might not actually engage in what they protest to hate so much (such as Elliot Spitzer’s hypocrisy on prostitution) comes other behavior or actions out of hate for something that causes that person to cross a moral line such as in the case of hating say a person that is homosexual and then feeling justified in killing them because they were gay. Murder is not very moral because you disagree with another person’s lifestyle or race etc.

If we are going to mention people in power what about the FBI agent who worked on child porn cases that recently founder herself canned for something she had done very wrong but what’s worse is the government won’t say what it was that she did so bad that it got her canned, as if to try to protect the integrity of the agency as it prides itself on being held to such a higher standard.

What does this say about people not being able to live up to such high standards then having to hide such facts only to protect the integrity of the agency (this situation could apply to anything or anyone)

Here is the link on the story for those naysayers who always want a news link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0820081fbi1.html

 

[greenberg]

No no no.
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
I cannot condemn anyone on any grounds (okay I do and then feel guilty) because to point the finger would mean that I'm judging them by MY standards and not theirs.

But if you judge people by their standards, even a lot of trouble may ensue for you. Should you sacrifice your own well-being for the sake of respecting others and their standards?

Say, to give an very illustrative example, that you are a Jew and you judge an Anti-Semitist by their standards. By the Anti-Semitist's standard, you are bad and deserve to die. So will you peacefully let the Anti-Semitist kill you or have you deported?

Or, another example, will you buy a product because the person selling it claims to value it?

Or, yet another example, will you pursue a relationship with someone who claims to like you, but whom you don't like at all?

Probably no on all counts - because your own standards have overriden the standards of the other person. Rejection is a form of condemnation. The condemnation aspect of rejection becomes clear when we analyze the reasons for our rejection.
(Note that sometimes, we give fake and invalid reasons (even when analyzing an issue just in our privacy) for the sake of minimizing the notion of condemnation as we have trouble living with out standards.)

And if I allow myself my standards (rather than live up to someone else's) then surely i should let other people have their own morality and not mine?

But letting others have their morality comes with the risk of undermining your own morality and your own chances for survival.

 

[greenberg]

That's not the point (is it? Not how I see it).
Do I have any justification in holding other people to a higher standard than I know I can match?
What right do I have to expect people to meet MY expectations?
It's not about "improvement" it's about functioning in society.

Improving yourself/your behavior and functioning in society are not mutually exclusive.

You have the right to seek to make life better for yourself.
You have the right to choose whom to be friends with.
You have the right to choose whom you discuss yourself with.
You have the right to choose whom to ask for help.


But if you want to get along with everyone, respect everyone, regardless of their standards - this might cost you your life, or at least consigning yourself to consequent moral relativism - which does not make for a peaceful mind nor a happy life.
As they say, sooner will the Sun go out than unversal approval be gained.

In point of fact it's more the other way round

How? If you start off with believing you are not moral, you block off any rational approach to improving yourself/your behavior.

 

[Oli]

But if you judge people by their standards, even a lot of trouble may ensue for you. Should you sacrifice your own well-being for the sake of respecting others and their standards?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

Say, to give an very illustrative example, that you are a Jew and you judge an Anti-Semitist by their standards. By the Anti-Semitist's standard, you are bad and deserve to die. So will you peacefully let the Anti-Semitist kill you or have you deported?

Well I haven't gone quite that far, but I have been in roughly analagous siutations and stood by my view of things: i.e. I have no justification in condemning their morals.

Or, another example, will you buy a product because the person selling it claims to value it?

My purchasing habits are, um, unusual. So I can't count that one.

Or, yet another example, will you pursue a relationship with someone who claims to like you, but whom you don't like at all?

Pursued someone, no? Ended up in a relationship with, yes.
(Although "don't like at all" is rather strong in that case).

Probably no on all counts - because your own standards have overriden the standards of the other person. Rejection is a form of condemnation. The condemnation aspect of rejection becomes clear when we analyze the reasons for our rejection.

As you can see...
Because I cannot do anything other be true to myself (very twisted though it sounds) and I see where you're coming from, but I don't have the "right" to judge others on my morals.

But letting others have their morality comes with the risk of undermining your own morality and your own chances for survival.

My morality: no.
There are things I will not do.
I don't place that much value on personal survival (but that's a different story )

 

[Oli]

But if you want to get along with everyone, respect everyone, regardless of their standards - this might cost you your life, or at least consigning yourself to consequent moral relativism - which does not make for a peaceful mind nor a happy life.
As they say, sooner will the Sun go out than unversal approval be gained.

No, I'm not looking for anyone's approval I'm wondering what right I have to put my views above theirs.

How? If you start off with believing you are not moral, you block off any rational approach to improving yourself/your behavior.

Tch no.
I consider myself moral and honourable - to the extent that when I actually use the word "personal honour" in conversation I get blank looks.
What happened to (nearly) everybody else's sense of honour?
And can/ should I judge them for it?

 

[greenberg]

So to me it is about what function the moral judgment is being used for? How is it playing out in power struggles and claims of entitlement.

Good point.

Whether the moral judgment is
1. made public,
2. reported to authorities,
3. stated to the other person,
4. kept private to oneself and those one holds in trust.

As far as making a moral judgment public or reporting the wrongdoing to the authorities - I think this is precarious. In some cases, neglect to report a crime is even a legal offense (depending on the individual country's law). But do you report a coworker? At what point? Do you report a criminal? I think these things can only be decided on a case by case basis as there are usually so many factors involved. But if you are in the position of being legally obligated to report a wrongdoing - well, then you probably should do it, most of the times.


But for most of us, the other two scenarios are more relevant in everyday life: whether to say anything to the person we have made a moral judgment about, and whether to make a moral judgment privately at all.

In the West, there seems to be the trend in rising to withold making moral judgments even in one's privacy. "You should not think of anyone as bad. You should not think there are people whom you do not wish to be friends with." I think many of us have been brought up to believe that disagreeing with someone and rejecting someone is disrespectful and makes you a bad and unworthy person. But the fact is that if we don't make moral judgments, we will end up in all sorts of bad situations. Witholding moral judgment does not protect you from getting into trouble.

And as to whether to say something to the other person - I think that if you are really close wih someone, then it is appropriate to state your moral judgments of the other person. If it's merely an acquaintance, then not.
If there is a conflict or a confrotnation, I think it's better to state one's moral judgments - because holding them back or minimizing them is what lead to the conflict to begin with.

 

[greenberg]

No, I'm not looking for anyone's approval I'm wondering what right I have to put my views above theirs.

Well, ultimately - What right do you have to put your own wellbeing above the wellbeing of others?
What right do you have to put your own peace of mind above the peace of mind of others?
What right do you have to put your own happiness above the happiness of others?

 

[Oli]

Exactly.
None that I can see.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well, ultimately - What right do you have to put your own wellbeing above the wellbeing of others?
What right do you have to put your own peace of mind above the peace of mind of others?
What right do you have to put your own happiness above the happiness of others?

You have every right to put your own well being/happiness above that of others. If you don't, who will? It's normal and rational for every human being to put their best interest above that of some stranger.

 

[Oli]

You have every right to put your own well being/happiness above that of others. If you don't, who will? It's normal and rational for every human being to put their best interest above that of some stranger.

Okay, at what point do you stop putting your happiness/ well being above that of others?
When you're comfortable, when you're rich, when all the competition/ possible discomfort is eliminated?