Imagine: morality is outdated, and it was canceled. No more stories about good and evil, about how good it is to transfer grandmothers across the road, but bad to lie. What is it like to live in such a world, and why do some modern philosophers believe that we should strive for a future without moral laws?
Modern reasoning about morality often begins like this: we tend to make mistakes, and if so, maybe we are mistaken about what good is? Maybe all our reasoning about morality is as wrong as Ptolemy's theory that the sun revolves around the earth? Such a view may seem absurd and even dangerous (after all, how can you survive in a society where everyone does what they want, forgetting about good deeds?), But philosophers like to think about what seems impossible and to doubt the obvious, so let's imagine a world without morality.
How it all started
Questioning morality is a long tradition in philosophy. Even in Antiquity, the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho, the founder of the school of skepticism, suggested that there is no rational reason to prefer some moral principles over others. For example, what we believe that equality is good and that everyone should be treated with tolerance is determined by the place and time where we live, our common culture. Throughout history, it is easy to find societies where women and slaves did not have any rights and were treated accordingly, moreover, such behavior was considered correct and just, and it never even occurred to anyone to talk about equal rights for all people. Therefore, morality depends on society - this was the conclusion of Pyrrho, and this approach to morality is called moral relativism.
Friedrich Nietzsche is the first to come to mind when they remember which of the famous philosophers had a bad attitude to morality: he is also a moral relativist.
Christianity, according to Nietzsche, is precisely the very "slave morality" that arose as a reaction to the prevailing morals. Therefore, the philosopher criticized the contemporary society, which was for the most part guided by Christian ethics, and suggested abandoning it, since it only harms and prevents people from developing.
Promotional video:
You shouldn't give up morality altogether, but it is worth remembering that there are no absolute values - this is what relativists remind us of (and, of course, they argue with them).
However, in the middle of the 20th century, philosophers appeared who took a step further in criticizing absolute morality: they assumed that morality does not just depend on culture and time, but it simply does not exist.
This view of morality is called the moral error theory, and it is becoming more and more popular in the modern scientific world.
What the theory of moral error says
To make it easier to explain what the theory of moral error is, it is often compared to atheism. Just as atheists assert that God does not exist and, accordingly, stop believing that the world was created by him, so the philosophers who support the theory of moral errors say that there is no morality, and therefore refuse to describe the world as good or evil, and their own other people's actions as right or wrong.
The Australian philosopher John Mackey is considered the founder of the theory of moral errors. In 1977, he published a book called Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, which began with the fact that there are no objective values, and philosophers have to invent good, rather than discover it as already existing in this world.
According to Mackey, this is the main difference between ethics and other sciences, and it is time to seriously talk about it. While, for example, the atom has always existed in the world and just waited for the moment when our technologies reached the required level to open it, good and evil simply never existed, and all our reasoning about them is only fantasy.
This resonant thesis, of course, did not go unnoticed, and mountains of criticism fell on Mackey's theory. Many doubted: are there really no objective values at all? But what about those cases when all of humanity is sure that it is unambiguous good or evil: for example, the totalitarian regime of Hitler, the bombing of atomic bombs and the murder of innocent people. Most people (if not all people) will agree that all this is evil, and it is unlikely that this will ever change.
Mackie did not argue with this: of course, we are unlikely to change our opinion about all of the above, but "evil" is just a label that we hang on all these events, so that it is easier to explain them to ourselves. If we lived in the Middle Ages, then, most likely, we would say that the Second World War or the atomic bombings are "God's punishment" or "devilish intrigues", and Hitler would be blamed in the first place not for being immoral, but in disobeying God.
The human brain is always looking for easy and simple ways to explain and organize something, and now scientists are increasingly studying cognitive distortions.
In addition, criminals rarely agree that they are doing wrong: just like us, they believe that their actions will do good, and those who try to stop them (that is, we) are the main villains. How not to get confused and understand who is really on the side of good, and who is on the side of evil, and in general, what is hidden behind these concepts - this inconvenient question is asked by philosophers.
This duality of morality shows that the world is much more complex and diverse than just black and white, moral and immoral, and therefore it is time to abandon the old system that drives us into this framework.
In general, philosophers who develop the theory of moral errors are trying to make a similar revolution in society that scientists once made, freeing science from mythology and religion. In ancient times, thunder was explained by the wrath of the gods, and several centuries ago, Descartes and other scientists of the modern era believed that the ultimate explanation for many phenomena was their divine origin. Any reflection began and ended with the assertion that God exists and could not be challenged. When philosophers and scientists began to doubt this, science stepped forward and found other explanations for many phenomena that were previously attributed only to supernatural causes. Maybe now is the time to stop hiding behind morality and look for another motivation for our actions?
Good does not exist: what to do next?
Suppose the theory of moral errors is correct: morality is really a bright wrapper, behind which there is no objective good and evil. We really invented them and for thousands of years have told tales about morality. What to do next? How to give up fairy tales? What should be guided by? What will replace morality?
All these questions are the main topic of controversy for all those philosophers who support the theory of moral errors, and, as often happens with philosophers, they have not come to a single answer. Therefore, here are three options for a possible future in which there is no longer good or evil.
Option one. We completely forget about morality
If morality is a mistake, then let's stop making it and completely abandon the idea of good and evil. This is the conclusion reached by philosophers who support the theory of moral abolitionism. They reason by analogy: when scientists understand that a theory is wrong, they usually completely abandon this theory. For example, when we proved that phlogiston did not exist, chemists stopped using this theory to explain combustion processes. It is logical to apply the same approach to morality: there is no good or evil, which means that it is enough to call some actions moral and correct, and others bad.
Such an approach, according to the Australian philosopher Ian Hinkfuss, will free us from the moral dictatorship of the elites and teach critical thinking. Indeed, now, in fact, those who have power and influence in society determine what is good and what is bad, which values to support and which ones to reject. They form a society that is convenient for them, as if their beliefs have an objective and rational basis under them, because the belief that values are eternal and absolute kills any criticism and reflection.
In addition, morality and belief in its objectivity complicates any disputes, turning them not into a conflict of private interests, but into a battlefield of worldviews and into attempts to prove whose side is eternity and objectivity. Cut out moralizing from the abortion controversy, and it will immediately become easier to get to the bottom of it (at least that's what the American philosopher Richard Garner thinks).
In general, abolitionist philosophers believe that once we stop believing in morality and judging each other's actions as “right” and “moral,” we will live more honestly. Finally, it will be possible to focus on other (more true, according to abolitionists) reasons why we act this way and not otherwise:
Option two. We continue to use morality as if nothing had happened
However, not all philosophers who support the theory of moral errors believe that morality carries only evil in itself and it is necessary to get rid of it as soon as possible. Among them there are those who develop moral conservatism, that is, a theory that suggests postponing the rejection of morality, even if this is a massive delusion.
Conservatives do not like the fact that abolitionists are so one-sided about morality: it is certainly not the main evil in the world. The Australian philosopher Jessica Isserow, in her article last year, tries to justify morality, reminding us that often more than morality alone is to blame for our bad deeds.
Not only morality is to blame for our disputes, fanaticism and demagoguery, not only it helped to establish and maintain totalitarian regimes. As the philosophers themselves remind, the world is much more complicated, and many factors affect our actions, one of which is our belief in the objectivity of good and evil.
However, one should not think that Isserow and with her all moral conservatives believe that morality as a theory is in fact true. No, they still claim that morality is wrong, and that good and evil are just our inventions. But these fictions are not as dangerous and harmful as the abolitionists believe.
In addition, conservatives remind that abandoning morality will not be so easy. We constantly use words such as “good,” “right,” and “just,” and even if objectively there is no good, how can we evaluate our own and other people's actions as desirable and socially approved?
Therefore, conservatives suggest that what philosophers are discussing should not be widely publicized. Let the theory of moral errors remain the lot of scientists, who will undoubtedly know about the true state of affairs (morality is just our invention), but society will continue to live as if there is good after all, because we are so used to it, and it should there should be at least some hope.
Option three. We do not forget about morality, but we treat it like fiction
But even if we are really more accustomed to morality than without it, and the theory of morality is even sometimes useful, to deceive people while only scientists will know about the true state of affairs - so-so perspective. At least this is the view of those philosophers who support the theory of moral fictionalism. They are the ones who compare moral conservatism with Orwellian epistemology, because only a small part of society (in this case, philosophers) will know about the true state of affairs and, thus, manipulate other people in order to hide it from them.
It turns out a contradiction: on the one hand, the theory of morality is wrong, but on the other hand, morality can still be useful to us. It is this contradiction that moral fictionalists are trying to resolve.
However, the fictionalists have another problem to solve: if morality is just a fairy tale, why then should we follow it?
Our belief in moral principles is often backed up by the knowledge (albeit erroneous) that there is an objective truth behind them. Therefore, in a difficult situation, we are ready to sacrifice personal interests and instead act morally and fairly, even if it is unprofitable and difficult for us. If we all know together that there is no good and evil, then morality will lose its motivating power and will lose all those useful qualities that conservatives remind of.
However, the fictionalists believe that this is not the case. Just as fiction, films, and works of art can sometimes evoke stronger feelings in us than real life (when we cry over the death of a loved one or rejoice with his success), moral principles can still provide they have a similar effect on us, even if they don't "really" exist.
Now it never occurs to anyone to think so, and therefore, in fact, we are the time when we confess our love, using this metaphor: our love is not literally in the heart. Nevertheless, we all perfectly understand what we want to say, and moreover, we prefer metaphors to literal expressions in conversations about love.
Joyce thinks the same applies to morality: we can still talk about good and evil even if we know they literally don't exist, but for some reason these moral metaphors better convey what we want to say.
The theory of moral errors may seem like just a talk of philosophers about some too remote and abstract things. Unlike the natural sciences, ethics and philosophy are unlikely to ever establish for sure whether objective good exists. In the end, the eternal questions of philosophy are so interesting because you can talk about them endlessly.
A couple of centuries ago, it was impossible and scary to imagine a world without religion, many voices insisted that if we lose religion and God, then the whole society will fall apart, but time has shown that this is not so. Perhaps the same thing awaits us with morality? By abandoning it, or at least realizing that good and evil are not so indestructible and objective, will we be able to treat each other more honestly and more easily meet changes?
We will see in the future, but for now, the theory of moral errors serves as a reminder that you should not treat morality in the abstract. Austrian philosopher Thomas Pelzler, who supports the theory of moral error, observed:
Pelzler proposes to mix possible options for our future without morality: in some situations, choose abolitionism and generally abandon moral judgments, in others - take the side of conservatives and remember the useful properties of morality to motivate us to do the right thing.
In the end, this will force us not to mindlessly follow one well-trodden path that someone invented for us, but to doubt, think critically and decide what is important specifically for us and what kind of future we want to see.
Author: Anastasia Babash
