Non-moralism

Non-moralism is a stance that the language and vocabulary of morality should be avoided as problem-solving tools. This idea stems from my belief that all forms of morality - from the societal to the personal scope are heuristic in nature. Rules of thumb designed as quick solutions to complex problems. Moral judgments as tools arose as solutions to problems, such as “murder is wrong” - we can imagine as a way to create a safe social environment. However, since then, this same tool was used to achieve a variety of other solutions - i.e. arguments against state executions. So first, when faced with a specific problem and with the application of a moral judgment to reach a solution - we must dig deeper and ask “Who/what benefits from the solution? Who/what benefits from the use of the tool?”

Because moral judgments are general rules being applied to specific issues… they often (but NOT ALWAYS) misrepresent:

  1. the effectiveness of the solution
  2. the beneficiary of the solution
  3. the beneficary of the use of the tool

The first point is pretty straightforward, “Murder is wrong” is not always the best solution - i.e. times of war.

Two is a little trickier, we would like to think that we have morality and use moral judgments because they in some way benefit US. “Murder is wrong” appears to be a rule that is in our self-interest, because if the rule were not to exist there would be rampant chaos and we may be killed. Self-interest I believe is a implicit assumption in all moral judgments. Is this really the case?

Three is a bit of stretch in that Im sure how I feel about this point but the beneficiary of the application of a moral judgment - is the moral judgment itself. It is re-inforced and persists within conciousness both personal and social. If strong enough, the effectiveness of the solution, and the beneficiary of the solution will be eclipsed by this interest. One can easily imagine the case of a religious fundamentalist who becomes a suicide bomber.

So how does a non-moralist respond to moral dilemmas then? Well, avoid moral language and use all your philosophy skills.

Hey, dude - can I give you a tip? Don’t use murder as an example. Murder already contains the notion of “wrong”. Use “killing” instead, or another sin entirely. It is redundant to say “murder is wrong”. Far from “digging deeper”, you can’t scratch the surface with an example that utilises an act that is by definition wrong.

People do this all the time. Bad philosophy.