Is there a danger to moralising everything? | Hilary Lawson and Kathleen Stock go head to head

Can we trust morality as a guiding force? Philosophers Hilary Lawson and Kathleen Stock lock horns over the good and the bad.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/being-good-and-b...
We all want to be good or be seen to be good. But from the Christian Crusaders of medieval times to the twin tower terrorists of today, from the leaders of both sides in WW1 to Putin and his invasion of Ukraine, those who carry out acts of terrible violence are often motivated by the belief that they are acting on ultimate principles and right is on their side. Might therefore the most dangerous strategy be the belief that we are acting for the good? Is this not the defence used to support actions however self-interested, unjust, and cruel?
#Morality #Danger #Philosophy
Kathleen Stock is a philosopher famous for her gender-critical views. She is a founding faculty fellow at the University of Austin.
Hilary Lawson is a philosopher and long standing critic of realism, best known for his theory of closure. He is the editorial director of the Institute of Art and Ideas.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@stevenverrall4527]

By studying human history, it is clear that human morality has absolute foundations. However, different human societies have struggled to determine which fundamental moral principles make the most effective foundation on which to base a world-leading society.

[@NerveConserve]

But the opposite is true - in a long history of mankind I don't have to go backwards more than 2.5 thousand years to find society with values contradicting these commonly held today. In fact, I don't have to look into the past, because I can find contemporary examples. Meanwhile, we are pretty good with predicting the outcomes our laws have on that society.

[@Skiddoo42]

@@NerveConserve There are also complex layers to intellectual oppositions in our philosophies. For example, the Bible validates genocide when consistent with the often arbitrary or tribalistic determinations of an alleged supernatural being/interpreter prophets, yet it codifies murder as being evil. This is just one of countless instances of flipped morals in accordance with situational circumstances, and we see this kind of logical inconsistency in all authoritarian systems. But we also see it in liberal societies, in fact, it's a defining characteristic of liberalism, whereas in conservative cultures the solution to dealing with such inconsistencies tends to be silencing protest through state violence. In a natural condition, we generally have to kill to eat, stealing the resources (and typically, life) of one living thing for our own use. It's always been a battle within our selves to balance the cruelty of this condition with the need to establish patterns of docility that we associate with peace, meaning and compassion for our closest allies, families, communities and selves. In labor we must balance extended effort with the need for rest and recouperation. Is balance the ultimate philosophy, or peace, or power? Do the underlings in a tiered society ever have a say, or are they merely cattle for their owners to exploit? Do the rulers of said society actually exist as slaves to their own systems, or do they unfairly possess pleasures beyond the grasp of their minions? All kinds of questions arise as the perspectives broaden.

[@kliudrsfhlih]

What a civil and pleasant exchange. The speakers are so careful to avoid straw man responses, and the back and forth lets us ponder two sides of a tension. Nice. To me, the tension is that one side is concerned about the dangers of fundamentalism in the general, while the other side is concerned about the dangers of relativism in concrete cases. To me morality can only be practiced as justice is, as a fluid construct decided by legal theory, applied case by case, decided upon by a particular group of people in a particular case, considering the particular people involved, the acts, the available punishments, all in a given social, political and historical context. In other words, I see the definition of morality through a Wittgensteinanian way in which there is no essence, but instead the definition comes from experience. And I am a pragmatist when it comes to the application of morality, which I think will always depend on who is in power, whether the power is democratically or autocratically distributed.

[@richardchapman1592]

Like your pragmatic legality approach but cannot afford your wages and in any case what a waste of creative time to be fighting cowards that can afford you to be on the offensive against me.

[@thstroyur]

To answer the title: morality isn't the most dangerous of all errors - this question is

[@richardchapman1592]

I'm sticking to biblical morality since obeying the rules of every morality would tear your mind apart.

[@GuessWhoAsks]

@@richardchapman1592 Question 1...Can we agree that any foundation that allows an "immoral" action to be considered "morally acceptable" should not be used to recognize the morality of actions? Question 2...Using your foundatinal standard(biblical morality), can we agree that chattel slavery is recognized as "immoral", or would you try to argue that chattel slavery can be considered "morally acceptable"?

[@NerveConserve]

​@@GuessWhoAsks You haven't asked me but i know the answers! 1. No. All possible ethics are self-contained systems and ultimately dogmatical. Any rule you can propose to differentiate actions will be ultimately axiomatical anyway and no different from fundamentalist on the metaethical level. Saying otherwise is a form of cognitive bias known as naturalistic error. To be honest, the only immoral things you can do is being a hypocrite or self-contradictionary and witing non sequiturs. 2. Anything goes, really. Ethics are more or less formalized. Let's make it simple and forget for a while about "biblical morality" because bible is a rather long book and prone to changes, and consider a). ten commandments + statement that slavery is moral b). ten commandments + the statement that slavery is immoral. c). ten commandments + we should decide on the morality of slavery by pondering the notion of human dignity d).we don't care about ten commandments but that thing called human dignity is really important These are four fundamentally different systems because they lead to different moral judgements. They are only superficially similar because some of these judgements are true in more than one. The world is a complicated place, so we tend to look for some rule of thumb to simplify it but a long list of moral things to do in a current state of the universe would be a perfectly good morality albeit lacking ANY fundamental rules. Would it be practical? Probably not but valuing utility is a moral judgement in itself. And as a sidenote from a historical standpoint you could argue slavery was perfectly acceptable (and since many people of the book claim the word of god is immutable then abolitionists are actually the bad guys. Catholics get a pass to change their mind because the pope has supreme moral and legal authority and outlawed it. All are perfectly reasonable and not one is an example of moral relativism

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

@@richardchapman1592Biblical morality is abhorrent by modern standards.

[@richardchapman1592]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll morality in the bible says we are all sinners but Moses's 10 rules superceded by Jesus's two should suffice as reflective principles even if you've little time for how hierarchy manipulates believers into waring sociological units.

[@Cyril29a]

0:51 The axiom stated is invalid because it deliberately ignores the responsibility that humans have as a result of our intellect. The reason we don't apply concepts of morality to non human beings is literally the thing that gives us the opportunity to be moral. We are born with an ability to reason that eclipses all other species and that ability presents us with the opportunity to be moral, which in turn, at scale, allows for sophisticated culture.

[@RiwazRajDhakal]

I thank the institue of arts and ideas for these conversations and content. Harvard and Oxford have started to take social media influencers, pornstars and gender studies major more seriously than philosophers, physicists and politicans.

[@bendybruce]

I think Hilary offers a more compelling argument here. I don't think we need to argue there is such a thing as bedrock morality in order to agree that there are both good and bad moral frameworks. Our morality is an artifact of our own evolving humanity. It can serve us or work against us and indeed has done both these things both historically and right at the present moment. I also think it's reasonable to believe our subjective morality needs to change as the context of our situation changes over time.

[@timothysommerladenneagram]

Yeah 😊.

[@mostlysunny582]

Yes we can agree that there is good and bad moral framework, but what and who sets or defines the standard for what is good or bad? This leads more even bigger problems if moral is subjective in nature.

[@Cyril29a]

9:00 Absolutely brilliant. The imposition of morality is inherently immoral and the goal must be to convince the other to participate willingly. Unfortunately that is a poor strategy if the underlying goal is general well being of living things, obviously because of the prevalence of bad actors.

[@Thinker814]

Kathleen is brilliant! So happy to see her in this debate.

[@NondescriptMammal]

"Morality" is only dangerous if you consider special cases of misguided "morality". As long as morality is centered on "do no harm to others", it's not ever likely to be dangerous.

[@NerveConserve]

Evolutionary biology would claim that you do much harm by simply existing and being a part of competition and all monotheistic religions claim that the purpose of human life is eternal salvation of the soul, so what you personally consider as a harm isn't a harm at all. Many metaethicists sympathetic to deontology can even argue that entire concept of harm is morally meaningless.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@NerveConserve Any "metaethicist" making that argument is using semantics to blur the difference between simply existing, and say, killing somebody. If you can seriously engage in such verbal trickery and believe that you have arrived at a coherent conclusion such as "the concept of harm is morally meaningless", and somehow be oblivious to the semantic chicanery you utilized to get there... I guess it is probably best to seek employment as a "metaethicist", where your talent for sophistry can be properly appreciated. 😸

[@GuessWhoAsks]

There is a problem in your ability to recognize the morality of action using "do no harm to others"...Can we agree that there are times when "doing harm to others" would be the most moral choice of action possible? Please google "trolley problem" for a recognized example...

[@Skiddoo42]

@@GuessWhoAsks There is a fundamental problem with using hypothetical examples outside of a teaching example. Reality rarely gives time for contemplation when posed with life-threatening choices, which can be explored in the classroom but isn't necessarily done.

[@GuessWhoAsks]

@@Skiddoo42 Good grief...lol..It is not relevant that the example is only hypothetical...A hypothetical example provides a framework for the OP to be able to see their position "Do no harm to others" does not account for times when doing harm to another person would be the most moral action to take... You provided NO valid reason to believe that there is a problem with using a hypothetical... Do you realize that if X can happen hypothetically then X needs to be accounted for in the OP's position as the frequency or probability of X happening is not relevant as long as X is possible??? Can we agree that doing harm to someone CAN BE the most moral action to take in some situations?

[@ywtcc]

Morality is a lesson learned. It's a solution in progress. It's a goal and a way of looking at things. Precise definitions aren't as important as a positive attitude towards listening, learning, and formulating morality as we go. It's supposed to be flexible, and able to evolve in response to negative outcomes.

[@Skiddoo42]

The lessons evolve with the depth and accuracy of one's perceptions.

[@damianclifford9693]

There is nothing wrong with intuition as a guide, it is an important route to the truth. The fact that it can be mistaken , as with reason and perceptions too, does not mean it is not valualble.

[@johncunningham9094]

Wow. Delighted to have stumbled on to this.

[@damianclifford9693]

Or maybe the platonic ideals / values are in the world and not invented by us to cheer ourselves up ..this is the belief of Iain McGilchrist and he has convinced me.

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Morality is the reason for human flourishing. If there were no morality, trade would be replaced by conquest which would set back innovation and throw the world back into stone age.

[@Cyril29a]

I agree but morality is actually a biological imperative and emergent property. Check out the book the Red Queen by Matt Ridley

[@NerveConserve]

@@Cyril29a Thank you for mentioning it! Actually, it's not even a science book but just an incredibly lengthy and badly worded opinion piece. Ridley plagiarizes Sutherland plagiarizes Dawkins plagiarizes... Freud. It's obvious to anyone who have passed entry level course in science methodology, ecology, or actual human ethics and psychology.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Morality does not make humans more "moral." Morality does not prevent immoral behavior. That's a myth.

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vdwhat?

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll Morality is not the guide to human behavior. Humans do not limit their behavior according to moral rules. The population that most fervently maintains its respect for moral rules commits the same moral infractions and in the same quantity as those who do not have any moral system systematized. Human agency does not result from the consideration of each behavior with respect to a set of moral rules imposed by society. Even a superficial look at any society should make you notice that.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Morality is rooted in the very _nature_ of the non-material conscious personality that we all really are. The conscious personality connected to the brain is _by nature_ good and free from all bad qualities. And it's this good nature that comes to the fore in the times when high character is displayed by great personalities. At other times it remains covered by ignorance. Therefore morality is not subjective. It's rooted in this supreme reality.

[@Jan96106]

Where is this non-material conscious personality? That is your metaphysical belief. It is incapable of being falsified.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@Jan96106the entire framework of falsification etc under which we do science applies only when you are observing and experimenting with material objects but science can proceed only upto a point. It cannot by itself penetrate into the higher reality which includes mind and consciousness. Making solid inferences on the basis of the facts of science then becomes necessary. Metaphysics seen in this light is not something airy fairy but something you do on the top of science. The presence of an immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain is inferred from an analysis of the brain and the neurones.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@Jan96106 @Jan96106 the entire framework of falsification etc under which we do science applies only when you are observing and experimenting with material objects but science can proceed only upto a point. It cannot by itself penetrate into the higher reality which includes mind and consciousness. Making solid inferences on the basis of the facts of science then becomes necessary. Metaphysics seen in this light is not something airy fairy but something you do on the top of science. The presence of an immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain is inferred from an analysis of the brain and the neurones.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@Jan96106 the entire framework of falsification etc under which we do science applies only when you are observing and experimenting with material objects but science can proceed only upto a point. It cannot by itself penetrate into the higher reality which includes mind and consciousness. Making solid inferences on the basis of the facts of science then becomes necessary. Metaphysics seen in this light is not something airy fairy but something you do on the top of science. The presence of an immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain is inferred from an analysis of the brain and the neurones.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@Jan96106 @Jan96106 the entire framework of falsification etc under which we do science applies only when you are observing and experimenting with material objects but science can proceed only upto a point. It cannot by itself penetrate into the higher reality which includes mind and consciousness. Making solid inferences on the basis of the facts of science then becomes necessary. Metaphysics seen in this light is not something airy fairy but something you do on the top of science. The presence of an immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain is inferred from an analysis of the brain and the neurones.

[@zgobermn6895]

I'm with Stock here, but for her argument to be compelling she must provide a metaphysics that will give a coherent grounding for her strong moral claims. Naturalism is logically insufficient. Forget reductionism in all its forms! CS Lewis articulated the debate in his insightful book THE ABOLITION OF MAN.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

👍. Morality is rooted in the very _nature_ of the non-material conscious personality that we all really are. The conscious personality connected to the brain is _by nature_ good and free from all bad qualities. And it's this good nature that comes to the fore in the times when high character is displayed by great personalities. At other times it remains covered by ignorance. Therefore morality is not subjective. It's rooted in this supreme reality. 🙏

[@MPRStig]

"Since some moralities can lead to bad results, let's abolish morality and bask in immorality". The present day nightmare. Some day this madness will come to an end.

[@Skiddoo42]

Did they say "immorality" or "amorality"?

[@ShonMardani]

What is morality? Why morality is hurting the brits?

[@peterclark6290]

_Sapiens'_ morality is written into our genome. Begun with the common instincts at birth (harm/Care.... Haidt) and reinforced by our internal drug cocktail (neurotransmitters...) we are thus _designed_ to be an _adequately_ sociable, courageous, self-improving, lover of beauty. Mankind will only achieve this when the primary purpose of any childhood is designed to foster these attributes thus _blueprinting_ completely enabled adults. Our sole superpower is common sense, without it we will remain members of the ignorant herd that power seeks to manipulate.

[@noelwass4738]

Morality is a bit like: "What you are doing is bad." "What I am doing is good." Who's to say? It is subjective but also cultural. The culture dictates to degree what we consider is good and what we consider is bad. Everybody has strong opinions. This is thought provoking and enjoyable.

[@thstroyur]

Reality isn't subjective. You're conflating moral knowledge with moral reality. I'm sick of everything being reduced to relativism by fiat.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Some morality seems less subjective, like not hurting others.

[@noelwass4738]

@@thstroyur Your comment has given me things to think about. The problem is moral relativism. In some contexts, it can be harmful.

[@Skiddoo42]

@@thstroyur Relativism is based on the notion that all perception is subjective. Morality denies reality by attempting to legislate over it.

[@michaeljacobs5342]

As the human race originated from being close to the animal world the role of civilization is an important regulating principle, as we have witnessed in current affairs with the advent of the Nazi regime, of what happens with the collapse of humanity.

[@NerveConserve]

According to Hannah Arendt evil is banal. According to any sane person, humans are also banal. Thus, being evil is also being very human. This year's movie Zone of Interest do well to remind us of that.

[@michaeljacobs5342]

:@@NerveConserve With knowledge of the evil inclination of man comes responsibility for our actions, we cannot claim ignorance.

[@leonmills3104]

Truth is Relative

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

It can’t be. If you mean all truth is relative. Because if it is only relatively true, then it can’t be absolutely true that truth is relative.

[@leonmills3104]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll Truth is Relative is not an absolute truth it's a relative truth.That means I agree that it can't be that all truth is relative is absolutely true ,but I wasn't saying that anyway so yeah

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

@@leonmills3104 So truth is relative is a relative truth. So, sometimes is true and sometimes it’s not?

[@leonmills3104]

@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll truth is always relative

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

@@leonmills3104 So it is always true that truth is relative? Is this relatively true or not?

[@homewall744]

Much of the norm and moral of the past would get you canceled today.

[@richardchapman1592]

That's how saints were made, now used to evoke a pantheon of demigods.

[@damianclifford9693]

Stock is far more convincing, Lawson seeems to take an idea so far as to become nonsensical..he is quite 'left hemisphere' in this. tleationalising.

[@zgobermn6895]

Pedophilia is just wrong, even evil. Period.

[@Skiddoo42]

It's inherently exploitative. Yet moral adherents use elaborate justifications to perform countless forms of exploitation that have been built into our economic systems, child labor being a perfect example. We don't need to call it "evil", for that only emotionalizes the codifications of exploitation. We need ethical action to create a sane and compassionate world, not more slavery and murder. The problem is to disambiguate ethics from traditional systems of morality which are easily conscripted by wealthy criminals and their loyalty networks. This is why religions turned morality into mysticism in order to build loyalties to the systems of exploitation as opposed to educating individuals about the complex problems of ethical nature and encouraging "dispassionate righteousness"... a term which would sound like an oxymoron to the brainwashed cultist who only understands loyalty.

[@timothysommerladenneagram]

​@@Skiddoo42 Yes, loyalty is the ground of it, isn't it 🙂?

[@attilaszekeres7435]

peak liberal incoherence

[@NerveConserve]

It's very coherent but very simplistic. In fact,in academic discourse you can categorize their postions in fewer words that it took me to write this sentence. Maybe the problem is you?

[@attilaszekeres7435]

@@NerveConserve Maybe. But what exactly is the coherent, unified moral theory that they're articulating here? The dialogue seems to me to be a muddle of realism, relativism, and intuitionism, with a side of utilitarianism. They can't seem to decide whether there are objective moral facts or whether moral judgments are entirely culturally relative. They want to say pedophilia is objectively wrong, but then they step back from saying anything is actually right or wrong in any objective sense. It's as if they want to have their moral cake and eat it too, avoiding the tough implications of either a fully relativistic or fully realist stance. Liberal incoherence at its finest.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

@@NerveConserve Maybe. But what exactly is the coherent, unified moral theory that they're articulating here? The dialogue seems to me to be a muddle of realism, relativism, and intuitionism, with a side of utilitarianism. They can't seem to decide whether there are objective moral facts or whether moral judgments are entirely culturally relative. They want to say (a word that made my comment disappear) is objectively wrong, but then they step back from saying anything is actually right or wrong in any objective sense. It's as if they want to have their moral cake and eat it too, avoiding the tough implications of either a fully relativistic or fully realist stance. Seems like good ole liberal incoherence to me.

[@sparagmos4748]

Morality is utterly subjective, even supposedly absolutes like 'don't kill an innocent person'.

[@thstroyur]

Hmm... nope. _Your_ perception of morality is subjective - and that's it.

[@sparagmos4748]

@@thstroyur How?

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@sparagmos4748 I suppose technically it's "utterly subjective", to allow for the kind of people who would not think it immoral to kill an innocent person.

[@noelwass4738]

It is subjective because what one person argues as moral or immoral are not absolute facts that have an independent existence. How would one prove that what one person believes is morally wrong is in fact morally wrong? People would have to come to an agreement about what is morally correct and what is morally wrong. These moral standards would then be enforced by punishing behavior considered to be morally wrong. The judicial system would come into play at this point.

[@thstroyur]

​@@noelwass4738 "It is subjective because what one person argues as moral or immoral are not absolute facts that have an independent existence" Just like this entire statement rests on _your_ subjective opinion. Yes, for a thing to exist, means that thing exists regardless of whatever any one person knows about it (e.g., the Earth isn't a rocky pancake, whether or not you know or are able to prove why); that is why a moral _fact_ is not the same as the 'social construct' view of morality - by which 'morality' is simply relabeled as whatever arbitrary socially/legally enforced behaviors; thanks to the 'illuminist' guys, this stupidity has haunted us for centuries. Don't tell me that 'morality' is whatever society arbitrarily pulls out of its ass because 'evolution' or whatever else you prefer; determine first and foremost whether or not there are moral facts - including the evidence, to boot. In spite of all the spit and spunk, materialism is just pseudointellectual gobbledygook posing as profound wisdom, when in fact it's just an utilitarian lack of curiosity garbed in circular reasoning.

[@worldnotworld]

This is an embarrassingly low level of sophistication. Why are these people on stage?

[@richardchapman1592]

Come on girl and get your hands dirty with the working classes then you will get another perspective about training horses with iron bits in their mouths to do ridiculous things for us apes.

[@Skiddoo42]

Not enough syllables for you? What's the problem? It's 10 minutes of a 10,000 year old debate, what do you expect?

[@worldnotworld]

@@Skiddoo42 Well, if the Institute of Art and Ideas seeks to promote itself as a locus for intellectual discussion about such lofty issues as the very value of morality, you'd think it might start at a higher level than this. I don't care how long it is. Again, who are these people?

[@richardchapman1592]

Anyway, morality seems to be in the hands of the 'go ad.vertise yourself' merchants in exchange dominance. Little to be done about that it is so widespread.

[@Jan96106]

@@worldnotworld This is part of a much longer talk. You need to subscribe to hear the rest of the discussion, just like you have to watch the commercials to see this part of the debate.

[@noelgarber4534]

This was an utterly vague and useless discussion, frankly. There was no substantive philosophical positions or internal logic given, and instead it was a lot of humming and hawing about vague nonsense.

[@NerveConserve]

Lawson is here anthropocentric consequentialist/legal positivist and Stock is a realist naturalist that bases morality on emotivism. They have literally no common ground.

[@richardchapman1592]

Agreed but after a day's work (half a day, in my case), it's fun to rant on a bit even if the purely logical find it illogical. Find some logic, man.

[@richardchapman1592]

@@NerveConserve emotivism sounds like a word only those enjoying the privilege of comparing others differences in a type of status match would enjoy. Try a trip in the TARDIS to compare your seat in the pantheon of gods to that of a sick bloodlusters at The Pantheon.

[@NerveConserve]

​@@richardchapman1592 Actually most leftist thinkers were opposed to emotivism. Especially Marx, Foucalt and feminist thinkers. Something really bad happened recently and I choose to blame America.

[@richardchapman1592]

@@NerveConserve thanks. Trying not to use words esoteric to lefties so am mostly ignorant of these defined meanings. The concepts of the rightists are however totally beyond belief as in any way humane over ruthless. Weak Knight.

[@user-ef9se3zm7d]

Bla bla bla...Nothing concrete.

[@sparagmos4748]

I don't think you really listened.

[@richardchapman1592]

Who is this man that wants a growing tree to be made of mineral aggregates mixed with water?

[@locman6228]

Humans are supposed to be more evolved than other animals. That is the whole point of morality. Duh.

[@Skiddoo42]

And yet the most prolific of moralist communities in humanity continue to act worse than animals, treating other humans as less than animals. Their morality isn't helping anyone.

[@ArtisanTony]

This one is not good to click bait on. Unsubscribed, yes, there are ramifications for your immorality.

[@timothysommerladenneagram]

The only way I *want* to use the term "evil" is for the obstacle of the family, born of monogamy and giving rise to the state, and for which morality exists -- we will be what we wish to be, no matter age, origin or appearance - and woe betide those in our way.