![]() They replace actual and concrete moral behavior with proclamations of one’s own moral opinions. Catch your friend dodging the subway fare…maybe a short sign of disapproval is enough, learning that someone might have committed a murder…I guess the case for reporting the person to the police is quite strong.īut admonishing people for not doing enough against complex societal/political or economic problems that are mostly out of their control anyway (who of us has even the opportunity to hire women for the same wage as men?) completely bypasses all these ethical questions we just touched. I think in concrete situations with known people a moral response should depend on the circumstances. Should you even stay friends with the thief? ![]() ![]() Now the question is if you are morally obliged to tell the victim who stole his 20$ bill? What if the thief was your best friend? What if we are not only talking about a 20$ bill but you also learn that the thief knocked over an old lady who is now in a coma? Suppose you say and do nothing can you be accused of not doing enough against assaults and robberies? Would it be enough to personally admonish your best friend who you now know as the thief? Would you be required to tell the police. ![]() The victim though still has a claim against the thief. As long as you (the gift recipient) are not aware of the stolen nature of that 20$ bill (or any other stolen object) you are legally not required to reimburse the original owner. I can answer your this at least from a legal standpoint here in Germany and let us suppose that law is codified moral behavior (at least that is one of many assumption about the origin of laws). Don’t worry, I won’t call you a slanderer for failing to join my crusade against slander. But wouldn’t you rather be a hero?” Maybe, just maybe, you can motivate people to do good without slandering them first. Consider this alternative appeal: “Sure, you’re an innocent bystander. Nietzsche aside, it’s far from clear that preaching near-universal guilt spurs people to action. So should we falsely condemn people to spur them to action.” In the words of Nietzsche, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” “Telling innocent people they’re guilty is more motivating than telling innocent people they’re innocent. What could be more obvious?ĭoesn’t this view lead to self-satisfied complacency? As soon as you ask that question, you are in the vicinity of the Noble Lie. You don’t have to crusade against pickpocketing to avoid being a pickpocket, you don’t have to crusade against racism to avoid being a racist, and you don’t have to crusade against sexism to avoid being a sexist. To so react, however, is absurd and unjust. This is exactly how I view most modern accusations of “racism” and sexism.” Imagine the anger a typical white male would provoke these days by announcing, “I am utterly blameless for whatever racism and sexism exists in our society.” Indeed, many people would take this very sentence as “proof” of the announcer’s racism and sexism. The vast majority of whom have never picked a pocket in their lives. Then instead of apologizing, you use Orwellian re-definition to label virtually the entire human race as “pickpockets.” In the end, you’ve divided humanity into a teaspoon of noble anti-pickpocketing crusaders, and an ocean of vile pickpockets. I submit that this is an absurd and unjust position. You’ve personally done nothing to stop it. Imagine, though, if my accuser instead declared, “There’s a lot of pickpocketing in the world.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |