Subjectivity mixed with morality can be a tricky business. Recently, I came across a statement which (very roughly) went like this: [Statement 1] You are doing something immoral if your actions make others around you feel uncomfortable.
Now, on a quick glance this might seem very reasonable and to some extent very intuitive as well. But, I hardly believe so. What might bother other people or make them uncomfortable is extremely subjective. They could be getting uncomfortable at things a reasonable person (reasonable as we know it) would not be.
For example, consider a thought experiment. Imagine a town where everyone is left-handed and they are very conscious about it. In this town there is a person A, who is right-handed. Him being right-handed makes all the other left-handed people very uncomfortable. Now, in this particular example, if A insists on using right-hand to eat food, write papers etc, would that make A an immoral person? And would A be morally wrong to keep acting as a right-handed person?
Common sense of course dictates that it would be ridiculous to conclude that A is doing something immoral by just being a right-handed person. However, according to Statement 1, he would indeed be guilty of being immoral.
Now, it could be said that I am taking an extreme example which is not applicable to general case. Or you could say that it is immoral only if others are bothered by something that is important and not something trivial like left-handed vs right-handed. In this sense, defenders of [Statement 1] could update the statement to read:
[Statement 2]: You are doing something immoral if your actions, the ones that are important enough, make others around you feel uncomfortable.
Statement 2 is certainly an improvement, and if there was indeed a criteria for determining exactly what was important enough, then yes, this could be applicable. However, the problem is, we can never determine what is "important enough" or not. Something I find important could be very trivial for someone else.
Conclusion: If we can never determine what is important enough with a unanimous agreement or certainty, then statements like Statement 1 and Statement 2 are not worth much, even if they are true. In a way, using subjective morality based on statements such as Statement 1 for practical matters is like taking pictures in the dark using a camera without a flash light. It can give you some rough insights but rarely anything useful.
[Note] Blog post has been edited and modified since the original publishing.
------------------------------------------------
Additional Notes (added later):
Premise 1:
[P1] If a person, x, performs an action, y, that makes the group of people, z, around him "uncomfortable" then "y" is an immoral act.
Test Case:
[T] In a given town, Person A uses his right handed to do primary tasks, which makes all the other left-handed people in his town "uncomfortable".
Here x = A, y = using right hand to perform primary tasks, z = left-handed people in town
Premise 2:
[P2] A proper definition of "uncomfortable" is available.
I will not define the definition of "uncomfortable" here.
Conclusion: Given [P1], [P2] and [T], using right-hand to use primary tasks is an immoral act (in the context of [T]).
Now, on a quick glance this might seem very reasonable and to some extent very intuitive as well. But, I hardly believe so. What might bother other people or make them uncomfortable is extremely subjective. They could be getting uncomfortable at things a reasonable person (reasonable as we know it) would not be.
For example, consider a thought experiment. Imagine a town where everyone is left-handed and they are very conscious about it. In this town there is a person A, who is right-handed. Him being right-handed makes all the other left-handed people very uncomfortable. Now, in this particular example, if A insists on using right-hand to eat food, write papers etc, would that make A an immoral person? And would A be morally wrong to keep acting as a right-handed person?
Common sense of course dictates that it would be ridiculous to conclude that A is doing something immoral by just being a right-handed person. However, according to Statement 1, he would indeed be guilty of being immoral.
Now, it could be said that I am taking an extreme example which is not applicable to general case. Or you could say that it is immoral only if others are bothered by something that is important and not something trivial like left-handed vs right-handed. In this sense, defenders of [Statement 1] could update the statement to read:
[Statement 2]: You are doing something immoral if your actions, the ones that are important enough, make others around you feel uncomfortable.
Statement 2 is certainly an improvement, and if there was indeed a criteria for determining exactly what was important enough, then yes, this could be applicable. However, the problem is, we can never determine what is "important enough" or not. Something I find important could be very trivial for someone else.
Conclusion: If we can never determine what is important enough with a unanimous agreement or certainty, then statements like Statement 1 and Statement 2 are not worth much, even if they are true. In a way, using subjective morality based on statements such as Statement 1 for practical matters is like taking pictures in the dark using a camera without a flash light. It can give you some rough insights but rarely anything useful.
[Note] Blog post has been edited and modified since the original publishing.
------------------------------------------------
Additional Notes (added later):
Premise 1:
[P1] If a person, x, performs an action, y, that makes the group of people, z, around him "uncomfortable" then "y" is an immoral act.
Test Case:
[T] In a given town, Person A uses his right handed to do primary tasks, which makes all the other left-handed people in his town "uncomfortable".
Here x = A, y = using right hand to perform primary tasks, z = left-handed people in town
Premise 2:
[P2] A proper definition of "uncomfortable" is available.
I will not define the definition of "uncomfortable" here.
Conclusion: Given [P1], [P2] and [T], using right-hand to use primary tasks is an immoral act (in the context of [T]).
No comments:
Post a Comment