If Morality Exists Everything Is Permitted. (Q&A)

Morality is dangerous. Here is why.
#Morality #slavojzizek #samharris
Why Sam Harris is Wrong - A Critique of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" (in 2020):
• Why Sam Harris is Wron...
(Article by Slavjo Zizek) If there is a God, then anything is permitted:
www.abc.net.au/religion/if-th...
Daoist Philosophy | Zhuangzi: The Dao of Gangstas:
• Daoist Philosophy | Zh...
Daoist Philosophy: Right & Wrong:
• Daoist Philosophy: Rig...
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau. He wrote the book: "The Moral Fool: A Case for Amorality", which focuses on morality and amorality.
www.amazon.com/Moral-Fool-Cas...

[@johnjmartin1731]

When you mentioned a comment by "John Martin", my heart began to race and I thought "Oh God, what did I say?" But turns out it was a different John Martin! There are thousands of us. Thousands!

[@etincardiaego]

This kind of case for amorality is just utilitarianism without moral talk (the feets)

[@troyarchers]

This is not a very convincing case. To say, "let's just increase well-being" is just asking for trouble. Whose wellbeing? Everyone's? The majority? Mine? Why is one answer better than another? These were all questions addressed by Mill, who acknowledged that he was addressing moral questions. The idea that "wellbeing" is good is tautological, as it is in the name, but you don't define wellbeing in a sense that highlights how it's different from what Mill defined as the utilitarian principle. Your treatment of how we no longer moralize certain things is also shortsighted and reductive. The idea that poor people are morally bad is a facet of different IDEAS of morality, like Calvinist and social Darwinist notions, but not even ingrained throughout of our religious traditions. It feels like you're playing fast and loose here at times, and stressing a distinction without a difference at others. The idea that its better not to moralize feels paradoxical regardless of how you approach it. Saying, lets demoralize our reasoning because it will enhance our wellbeing does not escape the judgment that it is BETTER to do so, right? If you're using criteria to determine what is better (like wellbeing), then how are you not working within a system of morality? Lastly, has no one ever felt righteous anger for something that destroys the wellbeing of others?

[@PaladinusSP]

When you employ categories like 'better people', it follows there also exist 'worse people', and therefore there is an implicit value judgement on what is 'better' and what is 'worse'. How exactly is this different from morality? Just because it's different from various religious moral frameworks, doesn't seem to me like it's not a moral framework at all. I'd say the only difference is that instead of some divine goodness, the moral judgement is against purportedly rational (but basically axiomatic) social or personal goodness. Such pseudo-amoral framework is in no way naturally prevents people from arbitrarily assigning the label of 'worse' to behaviours and acts, and even exercising violence to eliminate them over an 'amoral outrage', so to ensure that 'better' behaviours and acts become more prominent and result in 'better people' somewhere down the line.

[@SandhillCrane42]

There is no society, there simply is no such thing.

[@maximvandaele4825]

I fail to see why statements about what increases or decreases well-being are somehow not moral. If you didn't believe that it's good to increase well-being and bad to decrease it, then why would you even bother making these statements about well-being? I'm honestly kind of struggling to understand the point this video essay is trying to make

[@Lambda_Ovine]

I made the professor read my silly you tube user name :)

[@50centpb7]

"Well-being" is just a word swap for "good". If you are valuing "well-being" over any other state of being, you are making a value judgment which is indistinguishable from a moral claim. You can shift words around all day but you're still doing morality.

[@kiDchemical]

“Wellbeing” appears to me as a massively ideologically loaded concept cleverly smuggled inside a seemingly benign word

[@sandytimewell]

Isn't this really just semantics - rejecting the term 'morality' while still making moral statements? Would you accept the word 'ethics' instead of 'morality'? It seems to me your moral framework is one of increasing well-being and reducing that which harms well-being - i.e. that wellbeing is an intrinsic good. But how did you decide that well-being was a good thing to aim for, or that harm to well-being should be avoided? Is it the idea of an absolute ahistorical moral truth you object to? When deciding how to live your life you may say whether X is good or bad is contingent or whether Y is good or bad is contingent. But if you dig down, there has to be an intrinsic good to decide on whether the outcomes of whatever other contingent events are 'good' or 'bad'. Is not saying "health is an intrinsic good" a moral statement? I don't think we can avoid morality when deciding how to act - even if we give it another name. I agree with you that it's better to avoid judging people as 'good' or 'bad' but actions and outcomes need to have some judgement applied to them if we are to make any informed choices about our behaviour.

[@curtainkane]

I think perhaps something that blocks people from approaching this new perspective of amorality is that the concept of amorality is strongly rooted in moral terms, i.e Amoral = bad/evil. At least that's how the word is popularly used. We see it associated with villains/psychopaths etc.

[@incanthatus8182]

Learning to step away from a moral framework helped us a lot in leaving the abusive relationship with our parents and our boyfriend. When we were still thinking in terms of good/bad/who is guilty, it was a mess to navigate. Because we don't see either of them as "bad" people...and it's also hard to place guilt, when you see all of their struggles and suffering as well.

[@albertakesson3164]

I full heartedly love this. It only follows to see what sort of impact this thinking may produce in a general sense. Thanks, this brings me a lot hope!

[@timgeurts]

I was so confused in my philosophy classes about ethics! I’m very proud of my statement:

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

This makes so much sense to me. Thank you very much for posting

[@7th808s]

That's a very good point. Saying something is immoral often stops a discussion. There's one person in my life I had to think of immediately, who can get very upset if other people don't act according to his moral code. Usually the reasoning goes that he finds that people simply SHOULDN'T act this way, and the discussion ends there, because "if that's what you think, there's no arguing with that". But perhaps I

[@heartpiecegaming8932]

"We no longer see the people who are sick as punished by God, or morally responsible for sickness" - uhhhhhh, think again. If the pandemic has shown anything, it's how quickly people will "moralize" the covid 19 public health. Some subset of the people turned zero covid as a sacred cow, and not following all of their pointless guidelines (and even getting covid 19) as some sort of moral failure.

[@xenoblad]

Eh… well-being has a problem of being susceptible to infinite regress. I mean a person can just assert “why should I care about the well being of [insert target(s)]?”

[@bofud]

very clear and concise! I greatly enjoyed listening to this, keep up the excellent work!

[@raswartz]

Really good stuff. I think of morality as a rhetorical device that tries to capture certain intuitions about kindness, reciprocity, etc. but it does so badly, distorting and biasing our thinking in ways that are not helpful. Look forward to reading your book,