Morality is voluntary submission to a psychological force. When we deal with morality, being immoral is distasteful, like “that guy is being a slob.” Nobody told us that he’s a slob, and the feeling comes before the word itself.
So what is this psychological force?
It is the feeling of indebtment. The guy that was being a slob is not evil, we aren’t scared of him. What he really is is an ungrateful little bastard.
And, so, morality is not ever-present. We don’t have a moral obligation, we have a moral obligation to follow the rules of the people (or things? phenomena? I have no “down here” for those, and would agree with Iam if he were to say that that makes them irrelevant in this case. just a thought) that we are in debt to. The rules, also, are not arbitrary. They are specific parameters that need to be followed for the repayement to be effectuated.
In the case of the slob, he has a moral obligation to do whatever it is he is not doing that is necessary for the repayement of the debt.
Perhaps to a boss, who is paying him to work and be presentable. Or a friend, who asked him to go to her graduation (here the debt is emotional, we all owe our friends friendship).
The point is that being a slob means nothing, morally, unless you have an obligation to someone.
I suspect that you are conflating “debt” with “disrespect” (not yielding appropriate concern for a situation).
But morality is entirely about respecting the situation. People merely disagree as to what the situation really is, thus keeping everyone in the dark cloud except for those refusing to play the game.
Now, the question is whether we have a similar obligation to self. Take a drug addict, for example, who is degenerating due to his abuse. He must exist, or be alive, to take and enjoy his drugs - so the desire to exist is implicit in his desire for drugs. Is he then indebted to himself? Does he owe to one interest the mitigation or occasional sublimation of the other?
The slob I suspect is debt-free, probably in every sense. His ‘boss’ assumes some degree of ownership which the slob does not accept. Those who are not slobs are in debt to desires for wealth and standing.
Perhaps there’s a middle ground, depends on what a ‘slob’ is here? If he is merely non-indebted then I don’t see why he/she has to be bound to others debts. If s/he is a drug addict then s/he’s indebted to that, same with laziness. Is a monk a slob?
In my scenario, he is indebted. This is because his boss is giving him money, aka, coupons for goods and services.
If he does not do what he and the boss agreed he would do in exchange for those goods and services, he is immoral, thus we think of him as an “ungrateful little bastard.”
You sort of dodged the question there. Is there any similar obligation to self? Can we say, for example, that if he insists on using drugs, he should do so in moderation to protect his own interests?
If not, it seems our obligations are derived from cultural, or [inter]subjective, expectations; rather than the ‘objective’ criteria being referenced. The “slob”, so long as he is alive and happy, is of no detriment to nature, and is only of detriment to himself insofar as he hinders his relationships with others.
In other words, he’s not a “slob” because he stinks or whatever, but because others expect that he should not.
I don’t think there is any obligation to self, and there is no elegant argument like mine for morality as debt to show that there is.
You can shoot yourself right now!
…unless you owe someone something first.
Of course, I see it more like you can do anything you can imagine. To not be endebted to anybody would mean total freedom (not in the fake moral sense, but in the practical sense), morality is limitation.
Can you make a single statement that doesn’t require ideological assumptions?
Usually not where politics and society are concerned, but debt morality is surely an ideology. Damn your Nietzschean objectivism.
…and I thought it was relavant.
Monks and other religious disciples are indebted to God, yes.
Inactivity is forgoing the repayment of this debt, and on terms of the monk, his meditations reflect a sloppiness and laziness to repay his debt to God. He ought to be doing something. The question though, is, what does God demand of the monk? I’m tempted to say that God demands of the monk “Do Good”, but, I don’t believe in that jewchristian bullshit. Sometimes God ought to tell the monk, “Do Evil” too. Maybe God is BGE?
Either way, the monk must sit and listen, waiting patiently, maybe even centuries without Orders or Commands, but then, all of a sudden, God shows up and starts commanding the monk to do this and that. And that is the function of the monk.
Good one Peez.