Moral Values That Aren't Valuable

Are You A Heavy Thinker? Would you like to have more creative, interesting and powerful thoughts and ideas whenever you want? If so, you need the Radical Thinking Course - and it won't cost you a thing (you'll get a new lesson by email each week). Why not subscribe right now? (Don't worry. I hate spam too - no one else will get your address.)

This is a continuation from the page, Moral Development.

If morality is a matter of serving our own self interest, what moral values are consistent with this? It may seem that I'm saying you just naturally develop morally and can "feel" what is right as you go along. I'm not saying that. The impulse is normal, the development is normal, but the skills and knowledge that help do not come automatically.

Self interest is the goal, so a moral system should help define the "self" and achieve its highest values. What kind of system does that best? It probably depends on the person, but it has to obviously exclude any systems that start with altruism as their premise.

In its highest form, then, morality has to exclude most common moral systems that exist today. For example, it has to exclude those that seek the "greatest good for the greatest number," or those that claim the the "will of God" as the highest moral value. Other excluded systems are those that hold any group, whether family, nation, or all of humanity as the highest value.

All of these moralities have lead to death and destruction in the past. Of course those with selfish aims of the crudest unenlightened form can also cause death and destruction, but when have you seen this on a large scale in the name of self interest? Even if we argue that the Hitlers and Stalins of the world didn't believe their own stated altruistic ideals, they only rose to power because others did.

People with an honest concern for themselves and others buy into these altruistic philosophies without really understanding where they lead. They don't realize that moral feelings are a response to impulses of real self interest. They also don't understand that instead of helping others as they wish to do, promoting these philosophies will usually hurt more people than they help.

An example will help explain this. In some college classes on ethics, moral dilemmas are thrown out there for the students to ponder and perhaps argue about. One that I have heard is about a mother facing a choice. Her child is tied to the train track and a train is coming, which will kill him. Four other children are tied together to the track a short distance away, and they will be killed as well.

The dilemma is this: If she had time to save either the group of four children or her own child, which should she save? To make it more personal, the students are usually asked to put themselves in the mothers place and decide. Those who think the "right" choice is to save the four children, face a conflict between what they really would do (save their own child), and what they think they "should" do. They feel like a hypocrite saying they would save their own child, or feel inhuman if they say the opposite (how could you let you own child die?) to preserve their moral integrity.

As an aside, I sometimes wonder if this is less of an exercise in moral philosophy and more of an attempt to make people doubt their own virtue. Helping others feel guilty has long been a way to feel better about one's own moral doubts, or to push ones own agenda.

To answer the dilemma, though, I would save my own child. This is completely consistent with my morality of self interest, of course. But what is interesting is that a strong argument can be made that it is consistent with other moralities as well.

Where Moral Values lead Us

Consider for a moment a world in which mothers routinely put the lives of others above those of their own children. Consider how different the relationships between parents and children - as well as between husbands and wives and friends - would be from the current reality. To any honest observer, we currently DO value our own family and friends above others. At least most of us do, and this more "selfish" love provides a level of predictability and trust that makes for a decent world.

In other words this state of affairs is perhaps best for all, despite the apparent logic of moral philosophies that indicate otherwise. Wouldn't most of us rather know that our friends and families place our welfare above that of others? Wouldn't we be happier in such a world? And if most of us do prefer this, how could there be any benefit to the majority from a more altruistic philosophy? If most of us feel this way, we ARE the majority, after all.

Note: I'm exploring new ideas here, and may change my mind on these issues. But there is a clear distinction to be made between the a normal impulse to help others and philosophies which prescribes altruism as a moral obligation. Experience tells me there is a "natural morality" which we almost all feel as a sort of "moral compass". To act only according to preconceived moral laws perverts the normal development of this moral sense, by making ethical behavior a matter of impressing others or ourselves rather than seeking the guidance of our true conscience.

Saving four children instead of one would make perfect sense to a stranger, but not to a person who loves the one. Consider what else a morality of "the greatest good for the greatest number" or any of the various altruistic moralities can lead to. For example, if the good of the larger group is the only moral criteria, then why wouldn't this eventually mean killing off "undesirables" for the good of mankind?

Of course we don't have to speculate about whether this moral ideal might lead to that. It already has done so repeatedly in history. The banishing of diseased people from churches (which is even prescribed by the same Bible that most Americans believe is the word of God) in ancient times, the killing of witches by the Catholics in the middle ages, the killing of Jewish people in Nazi Germany, and even the recent attack on the the World Trade Center buildings were all done in the name of some "greater good" or altruistic "moral" philosophy.

We may disagree about what the "greater good" is, but once people buy into the general idea of altruistic morality, logic is on the side of atrocities. For example, killing those with serious communicable diseases might make for a healthier world population - and an altruistic morality can provide justification. I vote for leaving people in peace, but then I have no "greater good" except that which proceeds from my own selfish love and respect for other humans - real human individuals, not human majorities.

Sadly, the idea of altruism as a basis for morality is accepted by most people. Fortunately, in practice they mostly limit this philosophy to treating people decently, which can be good, and as I've argued, isn't necessarily altruistic at all. It is our salvation that people don't take these religious and moral beliefs too seriously. Those who do often become very dangerous.

Continued here: Moral Reasoning