However, these concepts are not just different but actually can oppose each other. It is possible to have a selfish, immoral and unethical person who is also kind. At the same time, it's equally possible to have moral person who is very unkind and cruel.
To begin with I will define each concept separately. Kindness is an act of giving to others or helping others. While one often helps people they find deserving, it does not have to be so. As an extreme example, giving money to a murderer or even helping them murder someone would still be kindness. Morals and ethics may judge you negatively for that, but it would still be an act of kindness.
Kindness is often directional, it directed towards someone, sometimes at expense of someone else. It can also be universal and blind, helping everyone equally no matter who they are.
Kindness can be based on moral but not necessarily have to. One can be kind on a whim, just because they felt pity. One can even be kind out of selfishness. Kindness attracts people towards you so one might do kindness to get people stay with them. Distributing wealth to key supporters from Rules for Rulers video is also an act of kindness of sorts and selfish, but wise ruler, would do so to shore up their rule.
UBI is a form of universal kindness. It gives everyone equally without any judgement on whether they deserve or need it. Something I find much more compelling than a selective welfare based on someone's subjective judgement on whether they need/deserve it or not.
Now moral. Most think of it as something good and praiseworthy. After all moral is concern and drive to do good. That could not be wrong, couldn't it?
Not so simple. Ask a question: "who decides what is good and what isn't?" ("Who are the judges?" as I worded it a while back). The more you think about it, the more issues with moral you will uncover.
Who decided that for example helping elderly is good and moral, but lazy people are themselves to blame and should not be helped. Who decides who is lazy and who is not? What is an elderly is lazy? Is it moral to help them or should you tell them to stop being lazy instead.
Why its even moral to help elderly but not lazy? After all both are net burden on society and do not contribute anything, just waste resources and when it comes to waste, elderly by far out-waste lazy by a large margin.
However, is there one same moral or everyone has different one? Most adherents of moral will tell you moral is one and the same for everyone and then will go on to disagree on what is moral and what is not. There are many different morals, ethical standards and so on. If there are many, which one is right one?
Back to the original question: who decides what is moral and what is not? Why they have right to do so?
Religions people will say God decided what is moral and what is not, but God does not exist. In the first-place religious people need God to wholesale the public their moral values and prevent them from being questioned and scrutinised. Do they have right to set rules for everyone else? Not anymore than I have right to tell everyone what to do by virtue of being God-Emperor of the Universe.
Finally, are morals really fair and impartial or biased towards self-interest of those who propagate them?
A tele-evangelist who solicits donations for their church is the best example of outright bias, but most moral is much more subtle. However, if one analyzes morals critically, it's quite easy to see the beneficiaries. When elderly white moral, it's always states that helping elderly is moral and good. When women write moral its always women, who deserve more. When homeowners write moral, respecting property rights becomes good and disrespecting property immoral. When businessowners write moral, running a business becomes a highest virtue and morality of employees is judged based on how loyally and faithfully they serve. A clear pattern here. In fact, based on what any given moral set of ethics claims to be good and bad one can easily tell who wrote it and for whose benefit.
When one sums it all up, it becomes clear without reasonable doubt that moral is not any kind of universal good. More so, moral is a tool of exploitation disguised as something benign.
Every moral ethics code serves a certain group of people by designating respect to members of this group as virtue. At the same time moral exploits other groups by demanding respect and service towards the designated group or groups. Finally moral declares those who do not show such respect or render service to said group as immoral, vile or worse and seeks to punish them for their actions. Furthermore, some moral codes mix things up to confuse and mislead people and hide its ultimate beneficiaries.
Because of the above, one cannot always expect a moral person to be good at all. Maybe their moral code compels them to help you, but it's equally possible that it instead calls on them to despise you instead.
The worst and most dangerous people are those who treat moral as absolute and ignore law and common sense in the name of moral. They would not only crush their own balls if their ethics code said its moral, but they will also do that to your balls and will think they are doing nothing wrong. To keep your balls safe, you should stay away from them.
My personal experience with moral and ethics was mostly negative. It was always used against me by various people of authority like my parents. Moral never offered me anything but only demanded from me. It was always moral for me to do something for others and somehow never moral for them to do anything for me.
My parents were highly "moral" people and tried to instill this in me, teaching me that "principles" (in terms of my mom) are the most important thing. I personally rejected their teachings and their "principles" as wrong and harmful. Instead, I take my self-interest as highest virtue.
All this is why I value kindness and dislike moral. The kind of unconditional loyal kindness that will give me care and support no matter what happens. On the other hand, I despise moral as I see it as a mere tool of control and exploitation by the privileged groups of society. One day I might flesh out my own set of moral and ethics that benefits me most, but so far, I live by self-interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment