Thank you for the post. I am following this series closely, and would like to offer my criticisms:
You advocate a Rawlsian process of deciding on shared principles from a veil of ignorance, and you call this “true morality.” But this seems to contradict your position that morality is fiction, that it can only be justified by how useful it is. Rawls’ notion of justice should be no exception. Will this notion actually be most useful, and lead to the greatest human flourishing? Maybe, but that is hardly something that can be ascertained from behind the veil, unless, paradoxically, one first prejudicially assumes that all prejudiced moral theories are false (the most prevalent of which, such as religious creeds, also typically claim to be the most beneficial for all individuals and communities regardless of their circumstances). And in fact, this is what you seem to be doing - rejecting all other moral theories as fictions despite this being ostensibly impossible from behind the veil. I believe what you are really arguing for in this series, in effect, is not that morality is fiction, or that one needs to deliberate about it from behind a veil of ignorance; but that it is very real, that it conforms to the Rawlsian system, and that it draws its justification from its conduciveness to good individual and collective consequences (which you seem to emphasize as being primarily material/economic). This seems rather like consequentialism (with some special egalitarian / redistributive parameters), a position which postulates objective moral truth and requires no veil of ignorance to conceive and define. Personally, I agree with the gist of what you say about preventing rampant inequality, needing to have some reliable form of wealth redistribution, needing to reconcile people to seeing their individual interests reflected in the community’s interest, etc. But, problems with consequentialism aside, none of this seems to depend on assuming morality is fiction or that the Rawlsian solution is itself anything other than its own kind of moral prejudice. Simply by claiming morality is fiction and then claiming there are better or worse or more or less useful fictions, you effectively reproduce a claim to objective moral truth, and this kind of claim is always prejudicial.
Thank you for such an insightful critique Joshua. I must go back and make some edits to resolve this confusion, but let me first clarify my position here.
The position I hold is that the choice of a moral goal is a purely subjective exercise and I honestly don't know why one should choose one moral goal over another, except for it being an aesthetic preference. I, for instance, think that life is more joyous when one lives in harmony with oneself, others and the environment (I talk about this in essay 5 of the series that I will publish next week). The moral goal here is maximising well-being for myself (and others because of recognition of interdependence). A psychopath might very well have a different moral goal because others and the environment are not a consideration for him/her. Does that make the psychopath wrong and me right? Not in my opinion. It simply means that we probably can't live together peacefully.
I also assume a harmonious co-existence as a kind of self-evident societal moral goal because I think an alternate trajectory leads to societal collapse- which the majority of folks obviously don't want. Once a moral goal is chosen, then some systems can objectively produce better outcomes than others. Here, I am advocating that Rawls's veil of ignorance can help us come up with the best system to promote a harmonious co-existence. This is not to say that the other theories are false or that Rawls's theory is not a fiction. It is just the most optimal fiction IMO. With that framing, it does collapse to consequentialism with egalitarian parameters like you said.
Now, the real challenge (as your comment points out too), is that everyone thinks that their moral fiction is superior to others :D This is where it is critical that one doesn't impose one's ideas of morality and ways of living on others. This was the challenge of moralizing that I presented in the previous essay. The hope there was that highlighting morality's subjectivity could help reduce moralizing. The hope with this essay is to get people to move away from in-group biases. I talk more about this choice of a moral goal and how to co-exist harmoniously when everyone has a different idea of what is the best system in the 5th essay.
I am grateful to you for following the series closely and helping me refine my thinking. Please let me know if my position is now clear or needs further refinement. At the very least I need to go back and remove the reference to Rawls's framework as "True morality". Please let me know if you think other changes need to be made as well
A very thought provoking article re-emphasising the principles of Ubuntu. In a world that often values individual gain, Ubuntu tries to give recognition to our interconnectedness and shared fate.
Such a noble concept struggles to achieve it's full potential due to a plethora of reasons.
Main amongst these are culture erosion, rapid urbanisation, economic pressures and it's being in direct conflict with those in power who want to cling to it. These principals have not found support or failed to integrate with education and politics.
The article is entirely readable and stands out for its clarity.
Thank you for the post. I am following this series closely, and would like to offer my criticisms:
You advocate a Rawlsian process of deciding on shared principles from a veil of ignorance, and you call this “true morality.” But this seems to contradict your position that morality is fiction, that it can only be justified by how useful it is. Rawls’ notion of justice should be no exception. Will this notion actually be most useful, and lead to the greatest human flourishing? Maybe, but that is hardly something that can be ascertained from behind the veil, unless, paradoxically, one first prejudicially assumes that all prejudiced moral theories are false (the most prevalent of which, such as religious creeds, also typically claim to be the most beneficial for all individuals and communities regardless of their circumstances). And in fact, this is what you seem to be doing - rejecting all other moral theories as fictions despite this being ostensibly impossible from behind the veil. I believe what you are really arguing for in this series, in effect, is not that morality is fiction, or that one needs to deliberate about it from behind a veil of ignorance; but that it is very real, that it conforms to the Rawlsian system, and that it draws its justification from its conduciveness to good individual and collective consequences (which you seem to emphasize as being primarily material/economic). This seems rather like consequentialism (with some special egalitarian / redistributive parameters), a position which postulates objective moral truth and requires no veil of ignorance to conceive and define. Personally, I agree with the gist of what you say about preventing rampant inequality, needing to have some reliable form of wealth redistribution, needing to reconcile people to seeing their individual interests reflected in the community’s interest, etc. But, problems with consequentialism aside, none of this seems to depend on assuming morality is fiction or that the Rawlsian solution is itself anything other than its own kind of moral prejudice. Simply by claiming morality is fiction and then claiming there are better or worse or more or less useful fictions, you effectively reproduce a claim to objective moral truth, and this kind of claim is always prejudicial.
Thank you for such an insightful critique Joshua. I must go back and make some edits to resolve this confusion, but let me first clarify my position here.
The position I hold is that the choice of a moral goal is a purely subjective exercise and I honestly don't know why one should choose one moral goal over another, except for it being an aesthetic preference. I, for instance, think that life is more joyous when one lives in harmony with oneself, others and the environment (I talk about this in essay 5 of the series that I will publish next week). The moral goal here is maximising well-being for myself (and others because of recognition of interdependence). A psychopath might very well have a different moral goal because others and the environment are not a consideration for him/her. Does that make the psychopath wrong and me right? Not in my opinion. It simply means that we probably can't live together peacefully.
I also assume a harmonious co-existence as a kind of self-evident societal moral goal because I think an alternate trajectory leads to societal collapse- which the majority of folks obviously don't want. Once a moral goal is chosen, then some systems can objectively produce better outcomes than others. Here, I am advocating that Rawls's veil of ignorance can help us come up with the best system to promote a harmonious co-existence. This is not to say that the other theories are false or that Rawls's theory is not a fiction. It is just the most optimal fiction IMO. With that framing, it does collapse to consequentialism with egalitarian parameters like you said.
Now, the real challenge (as your comment points out too), is that everyone thinks that their moral fiction is superior to others :D This is where it is critical that one doesn't impose one's ideas of morality and ways of living on others. This was the challenge of moralizing that I presented in the previous essay. The hope there was that highlighting morality's subjectivity could help reduce moralizing. The hope with this essay is to get people to move away from in-group biases. I talk more about this choice of a moral goal and how to co-exist harmoniously when everyone has a different idea of what is the best system in the 5th essay.
I am grateful to you for following the series closely and helping me refine my thinking. Please let me know if my position is now clear or needs further refinement. At the very least I need to go back and remove the reference to Rawls's framework as "True morality". Please let me know if you think other changes need to be made as well
A very thought provoking article re-emphasising the principles of Ubuntu. In a world that often values individual gain, Ubuntu tries to give recognition to our interconnectedness and shared fate.
Such a noble concept struggles to achieve it's full potential due to a plethora of reasons.
Main amongst these are culture erosion, rapid urbanisation, economic pressures and it's being in direct conflict with those in power who want to cling to it. These principals have not found support or failed to integrate with education and politics.
The article is entirely readable and stands out for its clarity.
Thanks Dad :) Yes, forgetting our interconnectedness and interdependence is definitely at the root of lot of the issues we face today!
Nice.