I’ve been sensitized of late to a troubling disconnect on the part of the modern human between morality (and moral language) and everyday life. This disconnect is all the more troubling because it seems to be shared by the educated and the simple folk alike. More so by the former, I’d venture to say, if I were a betting man.
It’s also troubling, not so much because it’s puzzling but precisely because it’s understandable, all too well understandable. And yet,the preponderance of evidence doesn’t come from ordinary usage, for expressions such as “get off your high (moral) horse” or “stop moralizing” are ample proof that the respondents are quite at home with the intricacies of moral language and the intended effect, that they don’t regard it in any way as being fantastic or fictive. They know exactly what you mean, they just resent it! Which only compounds the trouble because a perfectly natural question suggests itself:
Since we’re all so much at ease with moral language and the terms of moral discourse, why don’t we see it employed more often when discussing ordinary affairs, public or private? Why is it that the only time we’re really up in arms about moral talk is when it’s directed against us? Why must we always be reactive whenever morality is concerned, rarely if ever pro-active? Why must our attitude take the usual form of resentment or outright dismissal? Why doesn’t it manifest itself more often in a modicum of humility and a moment’s pause, a pause prompted by the invitation (OK, provocation if you insist!) to take a step back and reflect, to take a reckoning of ourselves?
I can well understand a reactive, if not downright hostile, stance whenever we’re being criticized for many of our faults, the kinds of things people usually criticize one another. There’s a perfect reason for this. We all know the bulk of such accusations miss the mark by a mile and are really beside the point. They’re superficial when it comes to it and far from being constructive; and we’re so very right. The well-anticipated reaction is but a natural human response to another's stupidity. Stupidity which manifests itself not only by not getting to the bottom of things and treating as significant what in the final analysis is trivial, but that stupidity which also reduces the art of communication and its underlying purpose, the building of relationships, to mere bickering.
But morality, the one and only aspect which goes to the very core of our being and defines what it means to be a human? For we all know, as the foregoing attests, there is no valid kind of criticism unless it’s moral criticism since all follows from that. There are no other grounds, everything else is fluff. It’d stand to reason, therefore, we should be more receptive to moral critique than any other kind of critique, and our responses less hostile. And yet...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
A silly error, page one, paragraph one ...
both by the educated and the simple folk ...
2 - roger nowosielski
A silly error, page one, paragraph one ...
both by the educated and the simple folk ...
3 - roger nowosielski
A silly error, page one, paragraph one ...
both by the educated and the simple folk ...
4 - Anarcissie
I'll start with a little moral drama.
'Why are you giving food to people?'
'To bring on world revolution.'
'What revolution?'
'Anarchy and communism.'
'Why anarchy? Why communism?'
'Because no one has a right to control another, and because the only just distribution is a communist distribution.'
'You're out of your mind. It's a good thing you're harmless.'
I guess it does lurch off into utilitarianism there. Let's try again....
'You're evil. It's a good thing you're weak.'
Oh, well. Hope it put some fat in the fire, anyway.
5 - roger nowosielski
A little moral drama is always a good thing.
6 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps George Bernard Show should be the required reading.
I must revisit the old fart again.
7 - troll
guffaw
having been 'called out' within this article it legitimately could be considered bad form for me not to point out that I neither compared the author's words to those of a sage nor did I characterize his articles themselves as circularly meandering...I did call him contentious incompetent and abusive however - which explains a bit
8 - troll
Anarcissie - how would the moral drama go that begins with:
'why are you giving tainted food to people?'
9 - roger nowosielski
Constructive and objective critique, reflecting the spirit of the subject article.
Definitely to be taken under advisement.
10 - jamminsue
Thank you, Roger. Keep hammering on the subject. BTW, not even Plato could define justice.
11 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, jamminsue, but we're not as bad off as you make it out.
My understanding of the Socratic question/project is that it had less to do with coming up with a foolproof definition (I doubt whether it's possible) but more with having people think and self-reflect.
In any case, morality is ever evolving, since life always presents us with new situations and new challenges. All we can do, really, is do our best and always do what we happen to think is right.
12 - roger nowosielski
BTW, a fascinating program just aired on BBC World Service -- "A Short History of Story."
It comes in two episodes, but the link covers both of them.
Cindy, you'd love part two in particular, especially when Steven Pinker considers the birth of empathy. From topical standpoint, it relates more closely to the preceding article, but no matter.
I'll post a link to a transcript, if available, for Anarcissie's sake, since she's not much into videos.
13 - Frank
Roger,
You asked us to be frank. So, here goes.
The criticisms you have been receiving from a variety of folks are accurate, imo. You are not reading and comprehending what people are saying. I wish you would stop doing that.
14 - Frank
(Oh, and thanks for the link on storytelling--something I am really keen on as a subject.)
15 - roger nowosielski
I am not going to get into another squabble, Cindy, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.
Do you remember, however, an episode two years back or so when you've been accused of playing coy and misrepresenting things on purpose?
Nuff said.
16 - Cindy
Well, I am sorry you would even think of a squabble when your friend tells you to you need to simply look over your responses where people have said you are not comprehending what they are saying. I am sorry your can't simply trust our friendship and do it. It is tantamount to presuming you are faultless.
On a happier note: Occupy Portland is victorious. The police left and the occupiers will remain.
17 - roger nowosielski
Yes, because it would be a squabble. I've always supported you from day one because of your spirit, intelligence and your drive. I supported you when Mark was on your case. I supported you when Christopher was on your case. I'd even sort of rebuke you in order to diffuse the situation. Even when I thought aspects of your thought (especially about indoctrination) could use re-thinking, I offered to go over this with you, didn't really criticize you. I'd even make excuses for you because of what you've been going through for the past year or so, because I understand the kind of stress and pressure you're living with. So now, after three some years of an online relationship, you still see me through the same eyes as zing or Christopher and some others?
You know what, I believe I've wasted three years of my life communicating with you, it's all for naught. I thought we were close to being friends. I really see no more reason for my being here. Until a few days ago, you and Mark were some of the few people that made it worthwhile, not just in terms of agreement on certain subjects but in terms of affinity. Now it's all shut.
In any case, I'll be getting a vehicle from my brother-in-law and be soon in California, so no, I won't be relying as much on online contacts for any relationships. I must have been a fool to think such a think possible -- looking for love in all the wrong places, haha.
From now on, Cindy, I'm going to be none other to you than just another pixel.
Clavos was right after all. I should have taken him at his word.
18 - roger nowosielski
... such a thing was possible ...
19 - Anarcissie
troll -- So it must be in the prisons of the Demiurge.
20 - Cindy
Roger,
I don't know what to say to that. I am going to presume you are having some sort of tough time. Perhaps you just need a hug.
21 - Cindy
And for the record, I don't see you through the same eyes as anyone else. I am simply saying that you are actually doing something that anyone can see. I hope when you feel up to it, you will look at it. This is not some ego-shattering criticism. We all are imperfect. Nothing new or remarkable in that.
22 - roger nowosielski
Don't worry 'bout my ego, Cindy. It ain't my ego that is being injured.
But that's OK. You just stick with "what anybody can see" paradigm. And in the future, let's not get personal anymore. I certainly won't, and I hope you have sense enough to follow suit.
23 - troll
...would that we could simply call in Sophia to clean up this mess
but damn - I'm supposed to be taking notes in an international GA in half an hour and I can't get mumble working
24 - troll
(...interesting meeting centered on updates from occupies and 'older' groups world wide and a discussion about when [and how] to schedule the next international day of action)
25 - Cindy
Keep us posted, trol!!
Morning, Roger. :-)