Skip to comments.How Moral Principles Make Us Dumb
Posted on 07/27/2010 12:05:32 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Moral* principles do more harm than good. We apply them self-servingly and selectively. They operate at the wrong level of abstraction, distracting us from the right level. I'm deeply committed to morality but I've never met a moral principle I could trust.
I can illustrate this best by example. Consider these two moral principles:
Don't cling. Show commitment.
What's the difference between clinging and commitment? From what I can tell, they are indistinguishable except that clinging is bad and should never occur and commitment is good and should always occur.
Clinging and commitment both describe a preference for keeping something (a law, a policy, a belief, a system, a relationship, a habity etc.) the same rather than changing it. So far I've never found any way to objectively distinguish between an act of clinging and an act of commitment. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something so please challenge me: We'd need some litmus test by which observing a preference for keeping something the same, one could reliably sort out the bad (clinging) from the good (commitment).
A Buddhist friend suggested that the difference is that clinging is desperate and commitment isn't. This proposed litmus test pivots on the intensity (desperateness) of desire for something to stay the same, where the more intense, the more clingy, and the more bad, and the less intense, the less clingy, and the more good.
The way to kick the tires on a litmus test is by looking for counter-examples. If they come readily it can't be a reliable litmus test. Think of the parents who desperately want to save their child from a tyrannical government's death squad. The parents' desperation feels neither clingy nor bad. The powerful tyrants on the other hand, could intend to kill the child while experiencing a state of calm resolve, no desperation, but not a virtuous "commitment" to the assassination either. The desperation litmus test for distinguishing clinging from commitment doesn't hold up.
The distinctions we draw between clinging and commitment are based on subjective assessments. When we believe that keeping something is bad or will turn out bad, we call it clinging (or any of a number of other pejorative terms-attachment, stubbornness, pigheadedness, etc.) and when we believe that keeping something is good or will turn out good, we call it commitment (or any of a number of other terms with positive connotations-sticking to principle, steadfastness, tradition, etc.).
Though in practice, clinging and staying committed amount to the same thing, their connotations are absolute opposites. Since clinging is supposedly always bad and showing commitment is supposedly always good, together they amount to the self-contradictory statement that you should never and always keep things the same.
You've been in a partnership a long time but lately it's not feeling good anymore. You wonder whether you should stay in the partnership. One friend says, "Leave. Trying to make it work is just clinging to the past." Another friend says, "Stay. Just demonstrate commitment."
Both friends imply that they're reading the situation objectively in a way that dictates a morally principled response. The word "just," as in "just clinging" or "just demonstrate commitment." is a powerful word. It means, "ignore all other possibilities." "Just" implies that the decision is a no-brainer, a decision as easy to make as "should I call this spade a spade?"
When I want you to let go of something I can say "don't cling." When I want you to hold onto to something, I can say, "stay committed." I can convincingly cloak my subjective opinion in the garb of objectivity. I can give my confidence levels (my assessment of the probability that I'm right about something) a high dose of steroids.
I have yet to meet anyone who isn't swayed at least a little by the morality implied in words like clinging and commitment. And I have yet to meet anyone who can tell me how to distinguish them other than that we hate clinging and love commitment. As a moral principle "don't cling but do demonstrate commitment" is hollow, yet influential nonsense.
It's also nonsense because as things change around us, it is impossible to have a pure policy of never clinging or always staying committed. Our options each entail a combination of changing some things a keeping other things the same. Change and constancy are reflexive, like triceps and biceps--to exercise one; we necessarily contract the other.
Think of how this works in warm-bloodedness (or any equilibrium seeking system). An animal's metabolic rate changes to maintain a constant temperature in the face of changing ambient temperatures. It's either change metabolism to keep body temperature constant or keep metabolism the same resulting in changing body temperature. Are either of those options purely pro-change or anti-change?
We only ever wonder whether to stay committed when our commitments begin to yield different consequences. We wonder whether to stay in a relationship because the relationship is leaving us less satisfied than it used to. We wonder whether to keep burning coal because it is now causing climate change.
If, for example, in relationship, you notice that "the thrill is gone," then keeping the relationship the same necessarily means changing your thrill level. If instead, you decide to change the relationship, it is because you are committed to maintaining thrill levels even if by other means.
If as a conservative you argue from the moral principle of commitment to tradition that we should continue burning coal, by necessity you are also arguing in favor of a break from traditional weather. If you've ever wondered why political conservatives and environmental conservation have such divergent goals, this explains it. Conservatives want to keep certain things the same and allow changes in others, environmental conservationists want to keep and allow changes in different things.
The principle of conservatism is therefore nonsense. Saying "I hold to the moral principle of keeping everything the same" is like saying, "When it comes to breathing, I'm for the moral principle of always exhaling." In a changing world you can't any more keep everything the same than in the act of breathing you can always exhale."
And the same goes for progressivism. The moral principle that change (transformation, evolution, etc.) is good and that keeping things the same (clinging, attachment, etc.) is bad is nonsense for the same reason. It's like saying "When it comes to breathing, I'm for the moral principle of always inhaling."
The moral virtue of commitment or change is, in practice just a rationale selectively applied after the fact. If I'm a conservative, I first decide what I want and then rationalize my decision by focusing on the things I prefer to keep the same and call it a "commitment to tradition" and ignoring all the things I'm changing in the process. If I'm a progressive I decide what I want and then rationalize my preference by focusing on what I want changed and call it "not clinging to the past," while ignoring all the things I hold constant in the process. Applying these moral principles is at best stupid, and at worst disingenuous.
These moral principles to keep things the same or change them are red herrings, irrelevancies, impotencies masquerading as potent guides and distracting us from the real questions. They're as bad as the such moral principles as "always give...," or "never allow..." Give what? Allow what? Change what? Keep what the same? Those are the real questions.
I said this was an example that illustrates the larger point that moral principles do more harm than good. I'll expand beyond the example in another article. This is an important example though. The question of what to change and what to keep the same is about as fundamental as it gets. Life adapts to an environment in which the past is usually, but not always the best guide to the future, in which, contrary to the saying that "the only constant is change," the only real constant is an incompletely predictable mix of constancy and change. The serenity prayer captures it: what can change and what to try to change and what to let change.
... all the while clinging to his own sacred cows. My late grandmother had a great, archaic phrase for such people. Addlepated nincompoops.
Odd, because there seems to be a strong correlation between increasing moral decay in America and decreasing academic performance over the last 40 years.
"College teaching tends to attract the kind of people who are incapable of making a living with either their minds or their hands." --Florence King
Liberal lefties say Pink is bad as it stereotypes girls but Codepink is good, because they only want change and inhale without exhaling. Say what? Logic out the window on every level.
Kind of the old "Them that can do, those that can't teach" scenario.
Yep. We all have sacred cows we all have deficits of truth.
Yet this man believes he alone holds the key to invalidate all “moral principles” why just “moral principles” and not all principles?
For example, take the concept of addiction. Although the twelve step process has helped many, many people and is an excellent program, I disagree with their contention that “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic!” Neither attachment to alcohol, nor aversion to alcohol is a good thing. In the twelfth step, through ones spiritual growth, they fill the void that created the attachment with Divine Love, that person is no longer an addict. Whether one is drawn toward something or pushing off that same something, they are still attached to it.
To the Buddhist, awakening to the Spirit creates “non-attachment.” To the Christian, it is the “dying daily” concept that Paul spoke of that allows the Holy Spirit” to enter. When a person is connected to the Divine, attachment of the Soul is on the vertical axis and not the horizontal axis, thus there are no opposites. It is the perfect union. The strength comes from above, not from attachment to or aversion from the physical things around us. This, the author of the “Psychology Today” article does not understand.
Remember, money is not evil, but attachment to it(love of) is.
I guess you could call the author’s words “psycho-babble.”
I have a degree in psychology, among others, and the first thing you learn is that most people who reach the career level in this field, do it to work on their own issues as they are screwed up. I could have written excellent papers about the psychological instability of most of the psychology department, including the chairwoman, but their aversion to self reflect and grow would have created even more tension than I already did. They hated me as their student and asked me to leave! I didn't though, I just took more of their classes. (Helped me overcome my dominant mother issue.. LOL)
Here is a cut & past from his facebook! Please read the next to the last line.... it explains it all... and his not understanding committment. And to think, this guy is teaching our children!
Jeremy Sherman is a generalist, enjoying serious middle-age spread as a professor of social sciences, spreadingly defined to include psychology, sociology, evolutionary theory, history, rhetoric, philosophy, critical thinking and economics, lecturing 30 hours a week at Expression College for Digital Arts, in Emeryville Ca; as a chief researcher in Berkeley’s Consortium on Emergent Dynamics (www.teleodynamics.com), where he researches the physical origins of purposive systems, (how matter becomes mattering), the relationship between energy and information, and the nature of physical and mental work; and as author of a weekly column and podcast on everyday decisionmaking at www.mindreadersdictionary.com. He writes romanticynical songs, and plays upright and seven string bass and sings in jazz combos at cafes and restaurants three nights a week. Married once with three children (28, 24,18), fianced thrice since his divorce, Jeremy is now partnered with a fellow ambigamist with whom he enjoys among many things singing and playing romantic jazz standards at cafes around the San Franscisco bay area. Jeremy has a Masters in Public Policy from U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. in evolutionary epistemology from Union University.
His PT blog is Ambigamy. (read less)
Jeremy Sherman is a generalist, enjoying serious middle-age spread as a professor of social sciences, spreadingly defined to include psychology, sociology, evolutionary theory, history, rhetoric, philosophy, critical thinking and economics, lecturing 30 hours a week at Expression College for Digital Arts, in Emeryville Ca; as a chief researcher in Berkeley’s Consortium on Emergent Dynamics (www.teleodynamics.com), where he researches the physical origins of purposive systems, (how matter... (read more)Personal Interests:Jamming on the Bass
Radio Lab WNYC
I had the exact reaction you did. It always amazes me how many “smart” people are really stupid as hell.
Weak, desperate, needy, fearful, insecure, obsessed, manipulative, and a million other unflattering adjectives come to mind.
Consent to an informed CHOICE.
Don’t cling. Show commitment.????
Well, let’s try this for an analogous concept.
Clinging is likened to a weed that grows and grows, choking all the other life out of existence.
Commitment, of love, would be like a Rose. Inviting and beautiful, with limits. Hence the thorns.
Clinging — Hanging on too tight.
Committment — Hagning on even through change
Yes, I want my hubby’s committment. No, I don’t want him following me everywhere.
It didn’t take 3/4 of a decade in “higher education” to know the difference... and this guy still hasn’t learned.
Unless, of course, you just smoke it, and IT only chokes YOU.
Crack parties? Actually says that? Good Grief.
LOL, though I am in California, I wouldn’t touch that stuff.
Scotch is more predictable.
I am sure his Buddhist friend told him that concepts like "don't cling" and "show commitment" are guiding reminders for a psychological/spiritual practice of meditation or contemplation not absolutes. He probably also gave him the litmus test he is asking for and it applies to either phrase. If it is neurotic you're doin' it wrong!
He is really doing it wrong.
Those are seriously good analogies. They cover every point necessary to understand both concepts completely and their difference in two sentences.
Some pseudo-intellectual attempts a defense of the indefensible. Yawn.
One word answer ... "Context."
It is desirable to commit to that which is good. It is similarly desirable not to cling to that which is bad.
This is the kind of garbage bandied about in academia. It is trash, but it will take its place among all of the other leftist psychobabble used to convince idiots with irrelevant degrees that they are intellectually superior to conservatives.
Just think, careers are launched by churning out drivel like this. The worst thing about it is that this is taught to students who don’t know any better. Parents spend lots of money paying for their children to be exposed to this kind of propaganda.
First, everything beyond the first line became blah, blah, blah., since he never addressed moral principles, only behavioral concepts -- since when was "clinging" a moral principle?
Perhaps if he actually tried embracing a moral principle, rather than his "partner", he might understand the idea a little better. As it is, I can understand his need to tear down the idea of morality, if even only for his own sense of self.
200,000 student hours of teaching? When did that way of measuring teaching longevity start being used? It sounds more like trying to puff more air into the empty balloon by manufacturing an impressive number to toss into the CV.
Moral principles didn't make this guy dumb -- he seems more like a self-made man.
what he wrote is pile of crap & doesn’t hold water
This is just another intellectual stroll through moral relativism, the catechism of the Left.
This is moral relativism. Of all liberal tenets, I detest this one more than any of them, since I believe it is the root that all other liberal abominations grow from.
Eggs and bacon for breakfast.
The chicken clings to the concept; the pig is committed.
Very true. I bet on the bumper of the writers vehicle is a coexist bumper sticker too. From such Flee. The abandonment of moral principles as a nation and the state of decline in our nation on about all issues now is directly related to each other.
This guy believes, as many liberals do, that it is bad to have standards, because if you don’t live up to your own standards, then you are a hypocrite.
To liberals, who wear their faults on their backs, nothing is worse to them than being charged with hypocrisy (which is why they constantly charge others with it)
Can’t remain monogamous? Deconstruct and tear down the nuclear family.
Can’t keep kids from having sex? Encourage them to have sex.
Can’t stop using drugs? Make all drugs legal.
Can’t believe in God? Deconstruct, outlaw and destroy religious expression.
And so on.
For liberals, the bottom line is: If you don’t have standards, you cannot fail to meet them, and cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
Then, for them, life is good. What a twisted bunch.
Good analysis. I see why this made your blood boil. As Ann Coulter has said, never concede a false premise to liberals, since they will build a huge edifice on the foundation of that falsehood, which will be 1000 times harder to refute.
DING DING DING!
This guy is a PHD? I wasted my time reading this stuff that sounds like it came from an 8th grader.
I’ve seen those Ph.D’s in evolutionary epistemology before.
You can tear one off the roll in any local men’s room!!
file under “stupid sinners”
It's the difference between emotional stability and an "emotional crunch". The former describes a self-sustaining individual who can stand on their own. The latter pertains to someone who leeches their own sense of self worth/esteem from the attentions of another.
The fact that the author, even rhetorically, can't tell the differences bodes very poorly for them.
“Emotional crutch. More coffee...still, even half asleep I can smell bull chips from a mile away.
Good analysis. VERY good analysis.
Of course, even though it makes perfect sense, I can’t believe it unless you tell me where you got your PhD and who your advisor was. :-)
There’s also an obvious correlation between moral decay and loss of liberty.
2 Cor 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free.
I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Neither of these are moral principles in themselves, they are just aspects of behavior. It is when you apply real moral principles to the acts of clinging/commitment that you have behavior which is either ethical or unethical. This Ph.D's analysis never gets off first base because of a flawed initial premise.
Since when are “don’t cling” and “show commitment” moral principles? The problem seems more like self-impressed miseducated types who doubt absolute truths promoting “appropriate advice in specific circumstances” to morality.
Anyone who says that “Don’t cling. Show commitment.” are moral principles is nuts, like most liberals.
“Moral* principles do more harm than good.”
Hitler and his fascist leaders believed the same. Many speeches were delivered by Nazi Party members belittling morality and rational thought. Hitler used a stock phrase in a number of speeches calling for Germans to “think in blood.” He derided reasoning and urged Germans to think emotionally. Think in blood was an admonition to throw away reasoning and intellectual thought. Get rid of those two and there’s no morality, only animals hunting victims.
This idiot fascist hack is telling people to become beasts
Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. Those that can’t teach, administrate.
You’re asserting your point from a (rightful) assumption of moral absolutes, that moral right and wrong exist beyond human creation and definition.
If you want to understand his point, (temporarily) suspend that assumption of objective (God defined) morality.
My hat is off to you, Maelstorm. In first and said it all. Nail has met hammer.
GMTA. That’s where I stopped also, for the same reason.
Funny thing is, my pretty neighbor hits on me too. Odd.
LOL...I admit, my advisor was Ann Coulter...:)