Both, from my admittedly limited frame of mind, are abhorrent. Someone once said that “non-existence is the most perfect form of existence.”
I don’t actually think this. However, this post, given my line of reasoning, may ultimately lead to this conclusion (which, again, I don’t completely agree with - but I agree with its logic).
All right. Let’s get down to business.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation. An institution - museum, university, unspecified workplace… whatever - has entered into an exclusivity contract with a coffee company - let’s call it CofeeCo - that is accused of ‘immoral’ practices. These accusations include: pollution and exploitation in less developed countries, health concerns over the product (artificial preservatives in the coffee, too much sugar etc), unsustainable business practices, bribery, intimidation of union officials and even murder.
You are an employee, a student, or are somehow related to the institution that does business with CoffeeCo. You are thus indirectly affected.
In light of this exclusivity contract and the accusations made by activists against CoffeeCo, do you have a responsibility to find out more about this issue?
I’m not asking whether the contract itself is right or wrong. I’m not even asking whether you should do anything about it. I’m simply asking whether it is your moral responsibility to find out more.
…more in my next post (don’t want to make a wall of text)…
The general position I want to defend is that I (as an employee, student or whatever of said institution - let’s call it MuseumCollege) have no moral responsibility to find out more. I’m coming from a relatively nihilistic point of view although I don’t have to present it that way.
Here are my ideas so far:
The assumption that ‘finding out more’ about the issue will necessarily lead to your ‘knowing’ more is flawed… the amount of info is scarce and often tainted by the particular agenda of whoever released it in the first place - whether they be left-wing activists or CoffeeCo itself.
Perhaps by ‘finding out more’ I will only expose myself to misinformation, and thus, consciously or no, end up taking a position on the issue that is misguided.
Do you know of a philosopher, or school of philosophy, that claims that the accumulation of knowledge is not necessarily good? That knowledge in itself is bad or immoral?
Another idea: ‘finding out more’ seems innocuous enough. However, as Buddha once said (I don’t have the exact quotation but I have the basic idea down), mere thoughts ultimately define who you are. Thoughts can shape reality.
So thoughts, even the most seemingly insignificant ones, affect you in ways you can’t consciously understand. Knowledge affects your thoughts. So, ‘finding out more’ about anything will, perceptibly or no, influence your future actions.
Psychologists and neurologists agree that ‘thought’ is a physical phenomena. The brain structure physically changes because of thought, and thought itself is a chemical and electrical reaction, with neurons firing… So the mental and physical realms are in fact one and the same: any thought is an physical action in itself, and any physical action affects thought.
Since simply possessing or pursuing knowledge is an action with consequences, is it fair to say that the “Butterfly Effect” applies?
By simply ‘finding out more’ about the CoffeeCo issue, you are setting yourself up to have an impact on the situation, consciously or no. You cannot possibly predict the impact you will have. This impact could be good, it could be bad (if the information you acquire is wrong or misleading), it could even be disastrous.
In this light, is it fair to say that simply acquiring knowledge is morally irresponsible? By tangling with this issue, you are involving yourself in something you do not entirely understand. By wielding this ‘knowledge’, you are like a fool wielding an alien object you do not comprehend. This object could turn out to be a useful tool that benefits you and everyone around you - or it could be a weapon that does just the opposite. How can you know which it is? How can you know which impact you will make?
In this case, is it not both moral and responsible to leave the alien object alone?
Sometimes, given the infinite multitude of possibilities, inaction is the only moral and responsible choice to make.
“If we imagine an intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it – if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis – could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe ant that of the lightest atom. For such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes” – Pierre-Simon Laplace (Philosophical essays on probability)
Given Laplace’s quotation, is it fair to say that the only way one can truly act morally and responsibly is by being omniscient? Is it fair to say that Laplace’s ‘ultimate mind’ is the only one that can truly distinguish ‘right’ from ‘wrong’? (I guess this feeds into the idea that only “God” knows what true morality is. But let’s not get into that too much.)
Given all this information, it is logical to say that existence (our existence anyway) is, by its very nature, irresponsible and immoral. The only perfectly moral and perfectly reasonable form of existence, it would seem, is non-existence.
That sounds absurd, I know, but it makes sense.
However, wouldn’t ‘morality’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lose their meaning to an omniscient being? For surely both are necessary. That’s without even considering the idea that morality is a concept itself derived solely from narrow, incomplete and decidedly mortal perspective that is ours by necessity, but loses much of its meaning cosmically speaking. I’m going off-topic here. Never mind.
…
The purpose of this topic isn’t mere intellectual curiosity. It’s a term paper. I’m a week late already.
I appreciate your help and, given my obviously loose grasp of philosophical concepts, your patience as well.
Exactly. A man once said that “the most perfect form of existence is non-existence”.
Simply by existing, one makes a multitude of impacts. Inactivity is, for a live person at least, impossible.
Still, my original question, instead of being answered (I’m blaming myself, certainly not any of you - I appreciate any and all input), just keeps growing further away. Every philosophical question segues into a million more. It’s hard to keep focus.
I do indeed. I do so because the topic question (university exclusivity deal with the coffee company) implies a reaffirmation of a moral existence on life.
I don’t mean ‘amoral’. I certainly think existence is amoral.
However, from a decidedly human perspective - good and bad (the perspective the essay question seems to demand) - existence is immoral. This is because we have to make decisions and we have to act. We do our best to examine what is best, but we can never surely know the outcome of any action or decision. A good deed may have disastrous consequences. A bad deed may have wonderful consequences. These consequences in turn may lead to something cataclysmic or vice-versa.
Taking this into account, we are completely ill-equipped to make even the most insignificant of decisions, because each action we take has consequences we cannot hope to comprehend.
It is said that the average person, by the age of 40, will have started a chain of events leading to the death of at least one person.
From this viewpoint, existence itself is ‘immoral’, as my existence inevitably leads to a countless amount of events that we consider ‘immoral’.
I’m not being very clear but hopefully you can see through the crap and dig out the pertinent parts of my argument…
I’ll rephrase my original question to make everything more focused:
Generic University has entered into a 10-year contract with CoffeeCorp. This contract stipulates that only drinks sold by CoffeeCorp and its subsidiaries will be sold on campus. In exchange, Generic University receives millions of dollars.
However, political activists have accused CoffeeCorp of questionable business practices, such as the exploitation of ‘third world’ labour, bribery, intimidation and murder of union officials, pollution etc. Concerns have also been raised about the sugar contents of CoffeeCorp products.
In light of Generic University’s exclusivity contract with CofeeCorp and in light of the nature of the accusations made by political activists do we (students, staff, faculty, or alumni of Generic University) have a moral responsibility to find out more about this issue?
your only moral respnosibility is to the dreaded corporate leviathan… you will drink their swill and you will enjoy it…
no! rise up! force them to drink your swill? fine. the corporation stops giving money to the scool and the college has to pay back all the money the company lent to the school… forcing the school into bankruptsy…
Fair enough. Either way we lose. Or win. Whatever.
But what of the moral impetus to gain knowledge on the matter? Is there one? Why or why not?
The thing is, I have my absurdly simplistic abstract arguments sorted out already in a manner that complicates everything and explains nothing.
What this topic is trying to do is provide focus.
Would you be so kind as to tell me if there are philosophers whose views are relevant to my essay? For instance, did Nietzsche say that moral responsibility was a fraud and that knowledge is an illusion? (he probably never said that; I just pulled it out of my ass.) Stuff like that would be immensely helpful and would earn you my eternal (by which I mean about 5 minute-long) gratitude, however little that means from a stranger on the internet.
Hmmmm … first of all, you haven’t defined “moral”.
What kind of moral are you talking about?
So, there is no way of answering your question, accurately.
And probably you don’t have to bring up lengthy story to show the point, as you’ve hinted.
Then, the conclusion might be different.
Here, I’m assuming “the perfect morality” being a state where there isn’t ANY possibility of being immoral.
Because if there is a possibility of being immoral, well, it’s not really always perfectly 100 % guaranteed to be moral.
And this can be said to ANY type of morality.
Then, to be able to make moral evaluation, there has to be the possibility of being both moral and immoral state.
Because without these both side, such evaluation is basically meaningless, at least logically.
So, I would say, the perfect morality is attained by total lack of moral evaluation.
If there can bef moral evaluation, there there is a possibility of being immoral, and thus it’s not possible to be perfectly moral.
Similar thing can be said for any other value implying judgments and concepts.
It’s just like seeking absolute, when the perfection is meant to be unconditional, 100% sure thing.
Now, does it have to be non-existence, as far as morality goes?
I’m not sure about that, as we can think about things that doesn’t seem to make any moral evaluation.
For example, I haven’t seen a rock making moral evaluation about its size, color, etc.
But if you are talking about being perfect in ALL possible evaluations, then I would say that the perfect existence can only be attained by the total lack of “existence awarenessâ€.
I don’t know if that has to be non-existence, though.
As something can be existing without being aware of that.
Then, to that unconscious thing, everything is perfect, in a sense, as there is no way for it to be aware of any imperfection.
So, all moral person may have to go into coma to be totally happy with their morality.
Personally, I’d prefer to simply know the baselessness of morality, and forget about moral judgment implying some sort of imaginary absolute goodness or badness.
And you can still have temporal and practical morality, if you likes.
For example, to make forum discussions constructive, participants should keep certain standard in posting, replying.
Although there might be a good deal of discussion to agree what kind of standard should be met, I guess you can see it as a kind of moral, if you prefer.
But it has nothing to do with “perfect moralityâ€.
It’s a morality applicable in limited situation and under certain conditions, just as ANY other moralities are.
I don’t know what the professor meant by ‘moral’. I think it’s one of the challenges of the essay question.
The lengthy story about the university deal, unfortunately, isn’t an attempt to frame my philosophical conundrum - it’s the question I have to write a 1,500-2,000-word term paper on. I’m a week late already. Oops.
Right. So, by your evaluation, morality has no possible absolute application and is, as Nietzsche said, a product of the ‘moral consciousness’ - that is, it is necessary for practical living and decision-making, but beyond that, it is meaningless. This opens the door for relativism etc.
As for the idea of ‘perfect morality’, it is self-contradictory. The idea of a ‘perfect’ anything is self-contradictory…
I like your idea that non-awareness is a state of ‘perfect morality’ and that one need not go as far as ‘non-existence’ to find it.
That said, I mentioned Laplace’s idea of an omniscient mind earlier. Could such a mind be moral or immoral? Or, does omniscience, like non-consciousness, erase morality? Both are ‘perfect’ states, in the sense that non-consciousness can’t be any less aware than it already is, and omniscience can’t be any more aware than it already is. In this light, is it fair to say that, in both of these minds (the non-mind and the ultimate mind), morality ceases to exist?
Well, you can possibly tell that it’s absurd, illogic and meaningless to talk about such vague notion as “moral” without clear and specific definition given in the question.
Oh, I see.
Well, “morality” cannot be absolute, logically speaking, in my opinion.
And if someone try to argue that thee is a “morality outside of logic”, then that person is most probably incapable of logical thinking.
In the all sorts of “morality” I have heard, all of them uses some form of “evaluation”.
And any form of “evaluation” is a logical process and it remains within the limitations and boundaries of logic.
So, it’s pretty much relative thing.
It’s relative to the base of the moral judgment.
The morality of religious person is different from that of politician (well, if they care a bit about any kind of morality).
There is no absolute permanent “moral” evaluation, in my opinion.
“Killing other human monkeys” is a very good thing for many people, like solders and serial killers.
“Stealing” is very good thing for mafias and politicians.
“Exploitation” is a foundation of capitalism and very good thing for many business.
There is no absolute perfect permanent guideline for our conduct.
We are free, although it doesn’t mean that we are free from following consequences.
I don’t think about “omniscience” type of things.
I think it’s like the heaven.
The notion for imaginary perfect state, hoped by some believers.
Logically speaking, omniscience is impossible.
Or more precisely, we cannot evaluate and affirm the state of omniscience.
If someone declare that this state, that person, my awareness, whatever is omniscient, the very act of evaluation and affirmation confines it within the limit of evaluation logic.
And if it’s limited, it can’t be called “omniscient”.
Anything that has to be “limitless”, “boundless”, etc, cannot be evaluated nor affirmed.
Contradiction is in our desire to seek the absoluteness in something positive and thus evaluated and affirmed.
That’s why most us never ever find the answer and keep thinking of absolute things.
And when they subconsciously feel the logical conclusion that they can’t get it positively, they start to lie.
They lie to themselves and to others, talking as if there is absolute and permanent morality, rights, meanings, values.
Religion is one example of that.
But communism, capitalism, and so on seem to be as funny as religions.
Who cares?
I think it’s better to talk about something interesting for you than about the stupid question of possibly stupid professor.
It’s the thread you made. Take the control (if you want and/or if you can) and lead it to anyway you like.
It was annoying as hell but I finally came to a few insights about myself: apparently, I am an “evaluative consequentialist”.
That said, my ‘conclusion’ in a nutshell was that
-given that morality is by definition a dichotomized, relative and limited human concept
-it has no universal or absolute applicability
-absolute morality is redundant and self-contradictory
-still, within a decidedly limited human framework, morality is useful and necessary
-but taking into account this and chaos theory and consequentialism
-the best thing to do in the Coke situation IMO is nothing. No impact = no negative impact. Of course simply by existing you have an impact so ‘inaction’ is not an applicable philosophy for any person. Still, within the limited parameters that I established during my argumentation, one has the choice between inaction and inaction in relation to the essay question, so I chose inaction as the moral choice, whilst recognizing that the crux of my argumentation, ironically, was built upon the very foundation of dichotomy and dualism that I decried during my essay.
I also established that knowledge is by definition perception, so knowledge is interpretation, so knowledge is value judgment. The same goes for awareness. Also, since our minds work in limited dichotomized ways (hence dualism, mind-body problem etc) and knowledge in itself is a value judgment, we cannot be ‘neutral’ towards anything (neutrality, like omniscience, perfection or absoluteness, is also a self-contradictory concept). So the essay question, whilst seemingly benign (‘I’m just ‘finding out more’, the question isn’t asking me to act on knowledge or take a position’), actually implies one a) having an impact b) taking a stand on the matter. So even the pursuit of knowledge is an action not to be taken lightly.
I also posited that according to chaos theory (which I believe is more or less applicable to reality and tied to determinism) every decision we make has a chance of leading to something good (according to you or someone else) or something horrible. It’s a truth(?) largely outside of our control. This makes every action and every decision ‘immoral’ - or, if you prefer ‘irresponsible’ - by default.
Ideally, the best thing would be non-existence.
My personal (nihilist? materialist?) stance, practically speaking, is that since non-existence and super-existence (omniscience) are not possible, gleefully going around making ill-informed decisions and having various impacts** on the universe is pretty much a prerogative (**‘good’ and ‘bad’, and, why not, ‘cataclysmic’ - since both good and bad are necessary and since neither have any meaning outside of our perspectives), since ultimately (whatever you do) you go around fucking things up anyway.
I just remembered what I thought of the “morality” in the past.
I thought of “Morality” as a sort of tool for some people who can’t think very rationally.
They act and express according to their nearly automatic emotion and belief system based mechanism, mostly driven by subconscious part of their mind.
But they want to feel that they can think and they are acting according to a good standard.
Moreover, they want to consider themselves to be following some sort of absolute and objective guideline that they can be proud of, and they can possibly force others to follow (to feel that they are not alone, most probably).
And they bring up the term “moral”, which they don’t really know what they are talking about.
Since they don’t have any advanced ability in logical thinking, they just keep believing there is something called “moral” and they believes their emotional preferences and belief system based junk evaluations are good reliable objective logical one.
I guess it’s coming from some factors in our mind, in addition to the lack of self assurance in these people.
I think many of us, especially those who can’t really think logically, tend to see logical evaluation as something more reliable, good, important, and so on.
It’s partially because they don’t know how to think and because they don’t know the nature of the logical evaluation, they simply over-rate it.
They don’t know that it’s totally arbitrary and relative, and they may even blindly believe it’s something absolute !
So, they want to pretend that they are using logical evaluation and they are ACTING according to the result of logical evaluation, which they admire so much.
This fake logic gives them some degree of (false) self assurance, and also fake argument we hear so often to justify themselves and to push others to do what they want.
Probably, children are detecting these kind of adult lies, more than we think, unless they are brainwashed by their parents and environment from early ages.
But when they get older, and when they can’t find the absolute guideline to follow in their life, they too start adapting “moral”, “god”, and/or all other belief junks, half-willingly, and thus become adult liars.
Well, it’s the nature of our mind that we want to explain everything, we want to find the absolute certainty in everything, we want to know everything.
So, when we can’t have them … I guess there is a temptation to adapt substitute and hide withing the wold of illusion.
Although thee is no absolute “moral” and I don’t prefer to use the term “moral” so much, I think we can have temporally personal or common “moral” for the given situation, group, etc.
Ant it may help to achieve practical tasks.
But it can be overridden by other guideline of higher priority.
For example, in the aviation, and especially for pilots, there are many many regulations and laws that act a bit like moral standard, as well.
But pilots are allowed to ignore all regulations in the case of emergency, if they needed.
It doesn’t mean that they can get away with all legal and professional responsibility, though.
They might be asked to explain why they were in the situation to declare the emergency and bypass regulations, as it might be caused by their own errors and/or negligence.
So, I suppose “moral” and “ethic” can be treated similarly, IF people aren’t so fanatic about “morality”.
But in practice, I prefer to dismiss “morality” nearly entirely as something absurd, for the moment (maybe for another several thousands of years …).
And in the case of “CoffeCo†type situation, in which all of us are experiencing, we can always do something if we want.
When I was young, I was concerned about the marlin environmental situation, as I loved to sail and dive.
So, I even went to the university specialized in marlin environmental science and engineering.
But I soon realized that it’s not the lack of technology that was causing most of damages, but the lack of awareness.
If the directors and leaders in companies and politico-administrative machines are a lot more aware, really lots of things can be done and can be avoided.
Unfortunately, I knew too well that we can’t expect much awareness in many human beings …
Still, we can make effort in cultivating awareness in ourselves, if we want.
And without our own consciousness, it will be very difficult to foster that of others.
So, if we subscribe to positive hopeful view of the world, we can always do something to make the difference.
Although it doesn’t guarantee the better end results of any kind, at least you can feel good about it.
Personally, now, I rarely think about these things.
I go by my preferences.
So, I’m not doing right things, but I do what I feel like doing and it feels better than doing “fake moral” things.
As I do honor my stupid preferences, they are generally satisfied and also obedient if needed.
It means less dichotomy in my body-emotion-mind system and thus more relaxed living.
In turn, this allows me to consume and to resolve all sorts of suffering that comes up to the surface of my consciousness easier and more efficiently.
So, I end up as a person who is considered pretty healthy, emotionally stable and highly patient, very rational and reasonable (and negotiable), performing well in jobs and occasional hobbies.
The funniest part is some people even consider me as a person with high “moral standard”.
Well, as both “good” and “bad” is just a relative thing, whatever you do isn’t always “fucking things up”.
So, “ultimately”, you can do whatever you want without worrying “good and bad”.
We don’t have to be neither “optimistic” nor “pessimistic”.
Also, our logical mind NEEDS to find the damn Absolute to be satisfied and stay calm, as far as my experiences tell, so far.
And that’s need to be done totally logically, and impeccably.
If we mixes things up and bing fake logic or substitutes or illusions, the mind won’t be satisfied and it will keep seeking, and it’s not relaxing.
It’s not relaxing just as a liar has to keep lying to hide his lies.
We can’t concentrate on emotion nor physical sensation to escape from our mind, either.
The awareness will come back, and we will be brought back to the point where we’ve left, depending on the clarity of each person’s consciousness and degree of rationality (and maybe some other factors).
I’ve also read what you wrote in another thread (Introversion thread).
In your case, I think you are too aware and rational that you can’t stop thinking about things for prolonged period, most probably.
