I'm reading City of God now and Augustine is just constantly going off on the moral degradation in Roman society and honestly it's such a breath of fresh air. It's so stifling to spend so much time in spaces where the moral dimension is systematically excluded in favor of every kind of petty outrage. It seems like the only kinds of judgement that are acceptable now are the ones that have been consolidated along party lines. We hide within our tribes and spout platitudes and safely avoid any criticism that could possibly reach the heart. To speak with true moral conviction puts one in a vulnerable position both by staking one's own integrity against the accusation of hypocrisy and at the same time inviting crossfire from all sides. Thank you for writing about this.
Moral claims are treated either as vanity or as political claims when they are not preceded by an empathetic moment, namely willing the good of another. If an interlocutor does not trust you to have a preferential option for his or her own salvation, the moral claim has no authority. It thus reflects on the speaker as vanity (“my knowledge of right and wrong makes me superior to you, who chose wrong”) or a political claim (eg “we should outlaw abortion because it is wrong”). Both of these lose status in liberalism, which is infected with the twin tyrannies of emotivism and radical individualism. In short, moral code ought not be separated from its creator. From Deuteronomy:
Great post, I think you capture the moral skeptic or “ironist” well. This skepticism, especially the idea that you must leave your most deeply held beliefs (e.g. religion) at the door in order to participate in the public sphere, reminds me a lot of Rorty and his nonfoundational liberalism, i.e a liberalism with no such metaphysical principles as ”right” or ”wrong.” You also got right what I think counters the Rortian view— that these skeptics are themselves making a moral judgement.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree with the post
I wonder if there is some way to criticize people who stifle warmth and fun or otherwise miscalculate tradeoffs for “breaking the rules” without attacking or dismissing moral language
I'm reading City of God now and Augustine is just constantly going off on the moral degradation in Roman society and honestly it's such a breath of fresh air. It's so stifling to spend so much time in spaces where the moral dimension is systematically excluded in favor of every kind of petty outrage. It seems like the only kinds of judgement that are acceptable now are the ones that have been consolidated along party lines. We hide within our tribes and spout platitudes and safely avoid any criticism that could possibly reach the heart. To speak with true moral conviction puts one in a vulnerable position both by staking one's own integrity against the accusation of hypocrisy and at the same time inviting crossfire from all sides. Thank you for writing about this.
Die a hot girl, or live long enough to see yourself become the moral scold
Moral claims are treated either as vanity or as political claims when they are not preceded by an empathetic moment, namely willing the good of another. If an interlocutor does not trust you to have a preferential option for his or her own salvation, the moral claim has no authority. It thus reflects on the speaker as vanity (“my knowledge of right and wrong makes me superior to you, who chose wrong”) or a political claim (eg “we should outlaw abortion because it is wrong”). Both of these lose status in liberalism, which is infected with the twin tyrannies of emotivism and radical individualism. In short, moral code ought not be separated from its creator. From Deuteronomy:
"For this command that I enjoin on you today
is not too mysterious and remote for you.
It is not up in the sky, that you should say,
'Who will go up in the sky to get it for us
and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?'
Nor is it across the sea, that you should say,
'Who will cross the sea to get it for us
and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?'
No, it is something very near to you,
already in your mouths and in your hearts;
you have only to carry it out."
100% this is the key challenge underlying all of this. what to do about it!
Great post, I think you capture the moral skeptic or “ironist” well. This skepticism, especially the idea that you must leave your most deeply held beliefs (e.g. religion) at the door in order to participate in the public sphere, reminds me a lot of Rorty and his nonfoundational liberalism, i.e a liberalism with no such metaphysical principles as ”right” or ”wrong.” You also got right what I think counters the Rortian view— that these skeptics are themselves making a moral judgement.
Perhaps goes without saying, but I loved this, and thank you for putting into words what I could not.
You have put words to my own complicated feelings on this matter. I feel not only less alone, but in good company. Thank you for writing this.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree with the post
I wonder if there is some way to criticize people who stifle warmth and fun or otherwise miscalculate tradeoffs for “breaking the rules” without attacking or dismissing moral language
ugh i hare that so much too. that really is hall monitor vibes lol