I have a friend who is queer, vegetarian and one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet. Some would describe her as quite the good moral example too… Yet she wouldn’t like that at all, because she associates ethics with religious prejudice. Though partly inspired by Nietzsche’s work, she often points to something even more important: how ‘morality’ was used by empires of the past to erase native cultures.
Another friend was sharing his thoughts on a piece of mine about animal ethics. But out of a sudden, he became overwhelmed by memories of his home country, where morality meant baseless shaming by society at large towards misfitting individuals. Hence, he would frame the idea of being nicer to animals in terms of humanism, enlightenment, empathy or as a question of rights. Certainly not one of ethics. I found myself again discussing with a kind, charismatic and empathetic person, whose way of being could easily be complimented as moral, yet who very much disliked even the mention of the word.
How can this be? Both words, ‘morality’ and ‘ethics,’ refer to the same ideas and, in my experience, philosophy books on the topic promote care and kindness. Why is there such a difference between the picture of morality one gets from books and the one so many people encounter in real life? The reasons are, of course, obvious. Less so is whether we can reclaim morals from the misuse of the past or if it is even worth trying.
A stained history
In the most basic (descriptive) use, ‘morality’ means the code of conduct used by an individual or group – like a ‘toolbox’ helping us decide between right and wrong. But trouble begins when we look at its normative use: a code of conduct ‘that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people’ (SEP). Every human society has some sort of mutually agreed-upon (or enforced) rules of conduct; as Peter Singer noted, ‘ethics is inescapable.’ Now, humans themselves and the societies they build are different, so no wonder there is disagreement about the nature of morality, the extent to which it could or should influence our behaviour and who even has the authority to make moral statements.
Across history, the most common ways moral teachings have gone wrong were
- when the ideas themselves were really bad or
- when otherwise well-intended teachings were misused.
Good moral systems must account for both – to be able to improve with time and to prevent wanton harm in the name of moral indignation. While people do happen to discard harmful teachings, other times they dogmatically and violently impose them upon others. Instead of doing any of that dogmatism here, let us see some examples:
In Communist Romania, you’d be in big trouble if you …
Read the full article which is published on Daily Philosophy (external link)
