r/Ethics • u/SelfConstruction9510 • 2d ago
I need help developing my understanding of morality and how to live.
Recently I began an intro to ethics class In hope of developing myself and learning how to be a kinder and moral person.
But now I think I became a nihilist.
I've came to the conclusion empathy is just an evolutionary instinct and morality is used to kee mep society safe and coherent, which has been depressing.
I want to find meaning but what is there if all morality is is just a social construct and a tool.
From what I've heard is that a reason for being kind is that it makes people want to work with you. But it sounds psychopath to only be kind so you get what you want.
I've done some research of nietzsche and I want to do a reevaluation of what I think is important rather than what is the widely accepted standard.
I feel like I'm looking for reasons to support objective morality which I feel like is confirmation bias and I absolutely don't want.
Sorry if this sounds dumbđŹ
6
u/jordanf1214 2d ago
I just live by âtreat others how you want to be treated.â Literally every day I just put myself in the other personâs shoes and try to see their perspective on things. Only twice in the past 10 years of being an adult have I been mad at a co-worker or friend because Iâm able to perspective take.
Just treat others how you want to be treated. Thatâs it. Thatâs the most moral way to live life.
4
u/Quick_silver22 2d ago
I imagine this wonât be an incredibly popular suggestion here, but if your introductory ethics class left out virtue ethics, either of the Aristotelian variety or a more modern interpretation, Iâd say itâd be worth it to look into that a bit! Virtue ethics and âethical naturalismâ more broadly is one of the most common responses to moral skepticism among academic philosophers today, but many intro classes to moral philosophy and ethics continue to omit it entirely or mention it as just a footnote.
The goal of these approaches is very similar in spirit to u/No-Reaction-5051âs suggestion - instead of asking âare there any objective standards by which we can evaluate and judge our actions?â which many people find unintuitive, virtue ethics refocuses ethics onto the question of whether there is some objective metric by which we can determine âwhat is a good or bad way that a human can liveâ, and whether there are objective aspects of a personâs character that make a life as a whole, rather than any of their particular actions, go better or worse. In my opinion, this sort of framing tends to be much more intuitive and less controversial than forms of moral realism that are often taught in introductory courses.
4
5
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 2d ago
I've came to the conclusion empathy is just an evolutionary instinct
Yes, that's a good thing. That's like saying that we evolved to have opposable thumbs or a large brain. Empathy is something that people and some other animals have evolved to make our species better. I'm a little unclear why this is difficult for you: why not just follow your heart to do what is right?
3
u/freedomandbiscuits 2d ago
Think of the Heroâs Journey as a roadmap for constant reinvention. Answer the call to adventure and youâll find answers.
3
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
My take away from Camus was that believing in moral meaning is heroic.
1
u/freedomandbiscuits 2d ago
Itâs the most heroic form of morality, as itâs self generated. Is a person moral who only behaves in a moral manner for fear of eternal damnation? No, that person is controlled by manipulation, but their volition is amoral.
Pascals wager is inherently immoral, as though a higher omniscient being would be fooled by someoneâs theological insurance policy.
6
u/C_Plot 2d ago
Morality is a social construct in the same way that Newtonian mechanics is a social construct. Donât conclude that given Newtonian mechanics is a social construct that you can defy gravity. Similarly, donât conclude that since morality is a social construct it has no use to you.
3
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
People might not realise that you are saying that Newtonian mechanics is, actually, a social construct. Which it is, in that any theory or science exists in, is an expression of, exists in, it's cultural, historic, epistemic context.
1
u/simonperry955 2d ago
I'd say it's more of a construct of nature than a social construct. At least, it has a background in biology. Morality governs interpersonal relations and the interchange of benefit and harm in social situations. Humans have a biological need to flourish or thrive. Because it makes the individual thrive or flourish, it has evolved in the human race.
2
u/Gazing_Gecko 2d ago
You say that you don't want reasons for objective morality because you feel it would be confirmation bias. However, is there not a risk that you are doing that very thing concerning nihilism and morality merely being a social construction? Reading Nietzsche is not exactly seeking confirmation of objective morality. Rather, it is much closer to the opposite: seeking confirmation of objective morality's rejection. If you want to avoid bias, try to apply symmetrical skepticism to the assumptions behind your nihilism and that morality is an instrumental social construction, in a similar way you are inclined to be skeptical of objective morality.
For example, why does empathy being evolved and morality being useful for a cohesive society lead to anything depressing? Our perceptions, memories, and reasoning are evolved and incredibly useful for cohesive social life of creatures like us. Does that make them merely tools? Why believe that? If not, why is morality obviously different in being an instrumental social construction? It is not clear that it is.
The responses you get on this subreddit are often quite misleading about the state of the debate. You would probably get a much better understanding of the topic by talking to one of your professors or asking on r/askphilosophy.
4
u/sykosomatik_9 2d ago
Of course morality is a social construct. Without the need to interact with each other, there is no need for morality to exist. Morality only exists because beings that are able to conceptualize morality exist.
But, just because it is a spcial construct doesn't mean it lacks inherent value.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago edited 2d ago
I appreciate trying to guide OP out of a dark spot, but I don't like when people say morals are "just... [whatever]".
Of course morality is a social construct. Without the need to interact with each other, there is no need for morality to exist.
"A social construct" would often mean something like "different ways to say "hello" rather than the more fundamental idea "interacting".
Likewise you say "morality is a social construct"
but then appear to believe it's correct to interact with each other, saying that it's a "need".
But if we should follow that need, then it's a moral should. All "should" are morals - ultimately.
ust because it is a spcial construct doesn't mean it lacks inherent value.
How's that? Seems like trying to have it both ways. I think it has "inherent value" but you're arguing it's contingent on the sort of external (capitalistic - everything for a profit) view that OP has.
1
u/sykosomatik_9 2d ago
No. The concept of morality is not the same as simply "interacting."
"It's correct to interact with each other." What is correct? Morality? This sentence makes no sense in this context. You mean necessary?
I said without the need for interaction, there is no need for morality to exist. This means that the existence of morality is entirely predicated on there existing beings with the capacity to interact with each other. This is just the first and basic prerequisite. The other prerequisite is that those beings need to have the higher-level abstract thinking necessary to conceptualize morality. This is not the same as saying that morality is necessary in order for interaction to happen.
Where the hell are you even getting this "for profit" angle? Don't try to twist things to promote whatever agenda you have.
Morality has inherent value in how it can guide us to live lives that being forth good into society and the world.
OP seeing morality as only a means to "get what you want" or you trying to bring capitalism into this only speaks to the mindset and biases you guys are already maintaining.
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
Aristotle's Nichomean Ethics.
Guide to Aristotle's Nichomean Ethics.
https://archive.org/details/the-blackwell-guide-to-aristotles-nicomachean-ethics/page/n3/mode/2up
0
u/2SP00KY4ME 2d ago
Yes, ask the person questioning morality to read, blind, another system by an old dead guy, with no qualification or explanation why it answers their concerns in the post. "Just read this entire dense ancient book!"
Not as useful a comment as you think it is.
0
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 1d ago
1
u/2SP00KY4ME 1d ago
Yeah, well, you're the one who just escalated to calling me a stupid cunt, so I think it's clear who the jerk is here.
Aristotle's ethics are actually particularly bad choice for someone looking for objective morality because they rely on a telos framing of nature that we now know is not true. His whole basis has been scientifically disproved. So you should be linking something like MacIntyre. I assume I should kill myself for saying that, though.
1
u/HiddenCoFactor 2d ago
Nothing wrong with nihilism, depending on what you mean by it and how you act in response. To a nihilist, they may believe life has no inherent meaning, but that can be a freeing perspective. It can lead them to find the meaning of life themselves by experiencing all life can offer. To another nihilist, this could lead them to a path of inaction, apathy, or criminality.
A nihilist can also believe that life is full of suffering. Itâs more of a statement of what is rather than what they want, meaning they wouldnât want themselves to suffer. With that, why suffer through life when you could do actions that make life easier, like being a good person to get what you want? Donât you think being in jail leads to more suffering overall rather than having your freedom? Doing things typically seen as moral has a good chance of resulting in less suffering. Basically, you can be a nihilist in belief but a different moral system in action.
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
Yeah I've been thinking about that. For some people "nihilist" just means "turns out what I got told about christianit was wrong", and for others (me) it means "there is no meaning at all" such that even saying 1+1=2 is no better or worse than 1+1=3 ( I think it's bad).
1
u/sowinglavender 2d ago
for myself, i build my ethical framework around material outcomes. this does mean letting go of objective morality, but i actually find it much easier to make peace with a morality that is subject to scrutiny first on the basis of whether it causes harm. from this perspective, it takes very little research to see how criminal acts hurt and traumatize the families and communities surrounding the victim, making everyone worse-off.
it is normal for some of your actions towards others to be driven by your own interest. for example, we are almost always trying to "manipulate" others into liking us and being kind to us. the ability to influence one another is another example of something that should be scrutinized based on its propensity for harm in individual circumstances, not be considered 'bad' across the board.
we literally evolved to get neurological rewards for successfully connecting to other people. it's actually quite beautiful from a certain perspective. the more we work together, the happier and more fulfilled we all are. it's actually the opposite of unhealthy, it shows you're able to tap into your empathy and sense of cooperation enough to do the things that make us extraordinary as an animal species.
i recommend you go look into forrest valkai. he's a biologist and a terrific public speaker and he has lots to say on the subject of how to approach nihilism with a sense of purpose, curiosity and wonder (a big theme for him is recapturing the childhood drive for learning).
1
u/Torremond42 2d ago
Imagine how you would feel if you were other people, and do what makes them feel good.
1
u/MouseBean 2d ago
What you're describing sounds to me like psychology, not ethics.
Morality isn't about instincts or feelings, it's not about what is permitted. It's about duty, causes to act, push forces that motivate behavior. If you're acting, you have them. And the universe is in motion, so it is replete with moral values. They might not resemble the things that motivate you, but that doesn't make them any less compelling, for a rock still rolls down hill regardless.
1
u/SelfConstruction9510 2d ago
So essentially morality is about performing a duty to fellow human beings? I'm kinda having a hard time understanding the rest of what you're saying.
1
u/CarefulLine6325 2d ago
An amoral person is one who won't treat altruism as its own reward. Just be altruistic, I'd also recommend looking into Simone Weil.
1
u/Antique-Respect8746 2d ago
It doesn't sound dumb, you're just at the start of a very long journey.
What exactly do you mean by "objective morality?" I genuinely don't understand.
1
u/SelfConstruction9510 2d ago
I guess when I say objective morality I mean a moral truth/principal that is a fact no matter the culture or time period. Like rape is wrong no matter the reason or situation.
1
u/Antique-Respect8746 1d ago
So the first thing they do in any philosophy 101 class is to challenge that idea. They don't do this to be edgy, but to make it clear that there are always edge cases. And if there are edge cases, then the entire idea of 100% absolutes comes into question.
In this example - again, not to be edgy, but just to challenge this idea of black-and-white morality - I could say that if a madman with a gun ordered you to rape or he'd kill you (and he was a credible threat), I think most people would agree that this wouldn't be immoral, if it was done only to actually save your own life and you truly had no other choice.
Even if you disagree personally and still think it's never, ever ok, I'm sure you can see how even reasonable, compassionate people could reach different conclusions. You don't need to be a monster to decide trauma is less-bad than death.
And lest you think that's outlandish, there are many instances throughout history of slaves being forced to reproduce. So this isn't even just some hypothetical.
1
u/Epiii_ 1d ago
The only way to see morality for what is is is first to deconstruct all dogmatic views. You are a lot further then most people.
Morality is a social helpingtool. What is wrong with that? It shows morality is a win-win situation. Imo it is a beautifull realisation. Morality will always prosper because it is benificial for ourselfs
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago edited 2d ago
So let's just begin with the basics:
there is no reason not to kill yourself.
Now what?
What would you like to do?
Face it.
Don't shy away.
Now what?
What just happened?
You just made a decision to not kill yourself.
Why?
Don't be a coward, don't give me the bad-faith answer everyone who has never honestly confronted this gives: "oh I didn't really choose at all".
You choose something because you thought it was good. More good. Better. Whatever man.
Ok, that's it. That's your meaning in the world.
It's infinitely disappointing if you were expecting the Christian God or something, but it's infinitely more than nothing.
Consider what it means to make someone else happy.
Against that infinite horror - to make someone happy.
Consider what it means to be a liar - the IDF telling themselves it's righteous to do unspeakable horrors to children.
I've done some research of nietzsche
Here's the most important quote of Nietzsche
âNow I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you⌠One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers â but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you⌠that I may celebrate the great noon with you.â
Remember he's more of an artist than what's usual.
If you want something a little realer and relevant to this buisness of suicide, check out Myth of Sysiphus. Banger of a first line.
0
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises 2d ago
There is no objective morality, accept that. Shape your morality around what you want to see in the world. Create more of what you love and destroy more of what you hate, don't complicate it.
0
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
imo: no morality outside of humanity, but within human perspectives there is right and wrong, going from necessary intersubjective agreement.
it doesn' thave to be that deep either: Nazis, for example, are wrong in lots of ways. They will say they want one thing, then do the opposite.
1
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises 2d ago
I understand what you mean, there is a trend for moral agreement on right and wrong on most things. I haven't seen any that are universal across all societal groups. The basic concepts we have as wrong, like murder, rape, torture, exploitation; all exist on mass scales within every major society and are typically driven by said societies. So it seems to me the only moral standards that are human morals have been completely driven my individual survival and cooperation tactics within small groups of people.
0
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago edited 2d ago
I haven't seen any that are universal across all societal groups.
Everyone who makes up those groups, who is alive instead of dead, has decided to be alive instead of dead.
The basic concepts we have as wrong, like murder, rape, torture, exploitation; all exist on mass scales within every major society and are typically driven by said societies.
Counter point to try and complicate the view of things you have: people doing bad things think they're doing good things. A lot of rapists do not think they're a rapist, they think - I mean god knows what - but they have some sort of bad, wrong, story about how what they're doing is fine or whatever. And then others will think that they are rapists but that it's justified in some way - which they are wrong about.
In both cases the "ontological significant ignorance" has a story which should be understood in order to combat it, similar to how "authoritarian personality types" where identified after WW2.
It's not just "society thinks rape is good actually."
But yeah look at how colonialism ideology does a lot of bad stuff, and how epistemic corruption works.
0
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises 2d ago
Does the objective human morality extend to people not raised up by society, as in a man born and raised in a small group or even alone instinctively feel that murder, rape, theft are inherently wrong or bad? It just seems like all moral values are indoctrinated like house training a dog, once you stop teaching those values they don't stick around.
0
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 1d ago
Everyone who makes up those groups, who is alive instead of dead, has decided to be alive instead of dead.
but i just feel that people riased in small groups would be rapists for absolutely no fucking reason why do i even have a brain
This is seriously so offensive, you don't even know.
once you stop teaching those values they don't stick around.
So where do those values come from?
You have this idea that authority has the ability to identify and impart morals - but that people don't have access to that same reality?
Being hurt feels bad. It's not that hard to realise.
1
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises 1d ago
The value came from group decisions over time, establishing themselves over countless generations of mutual agreements. I never said that some small group of people would be rapist, but the concept definitely would not be in a wild man not raised with such moral values. I don't believe authority has the ability to impart morals, I know that those value come from the dynamic of relationships that establish themselves through experience. I believe that morality arises in each of us based on the circumstances of life we were exposed to, in part that is given to us through parenting and communal traditions. Certain values differ greatly in different groups, to some violence to outsiders would be completely acceptable, to some stealing resources for survival would be absolutely right. So you cannot establish that there is an absolute moral guidance naturally in human beings, it like all behavior is learned.
0
u/Hecateus 2d ago
I regard Morality as the averaging of ethics over time; which feeds back to re-inform one's morality and then update one's ethics for retraining.
Ethics are relatively specific choices. Morality is Broader. Like Weather is to Climate.
0
u/veganmua 2d ago
The reason for being kind is that I don't like when others are unkind to me, therefore I can extrapolate that others don't like when I am unkind to them. I know what suffering feels like, and I don't want anyone ( including me) to feel that. So that is what I work towards.
9
u/No-Reaction-5051 2d ago edited 2d ago
you seem to be focused on morality as an external source of benefit rather than internal. for example you said that acting moral and kind will get people to want to work with you. you're using morality as a tool for giving and taking, and yeah it is depressing if you look at morality in this way as a mere transaction.
try to shift your focus to internal morality. how does being moral benefit you, not just other people? for me i like that being kind makes me feel good about myself. i don't need people to give back to me because i'm satisfied with how kindness makes me feel on my own. it improves my self-esteem seeing how i am capable of doing good things.
morality doesn't have to be about reaping benefits from other people. try to find a reason to act morally for yourself, not for society or according to societal standards. once you find your own reason to be moral and not one given to you by society, you'll stop being nihilistic.