Skip to main content

The Mock Morality

Our media, especially advertising media, is full of what is right and what is good.  Being right and good are the moral high ground from which product sales are made.

But what is right and good? Why not just steal a loaf of bread if you are hungry?  This question has floored the greatest moral philosophers of the past two centuries so why is the modern media so full of the "moral highground"?

If you steal that loaf and get away with it was it immoral?  Certainly it was illegal but we all know that the law can be an ass.

If you hurt someone's feelings is it immoral?  The person could be extraordinarily sensitive so you might unwittingly hurt their feelings, would that be immoral? And so what anyway?  If you want then why not hurt someone's feelings? The consequence for you might be that the person avoids you but you might be pleased with that consequence. Empathy might be social but why is empathy moral? Can you answer that question except in terms that are socially acceptable to your Facebook group?

Every area of modern "morality" is largely an invention of the media to create polarisation or cult followings or an invention of lawmakers to impose social order.

Take "hate speech" for example.  Some people hold that it is wrong to speak "hatefully" but is it wrong to revile the murderer of your child? Just speaking hatefully is not wrong in itself.  So why is calling someone a name sometimes "wrong", even to the point of inviting a fine or imprisonment?  Certainly if the bulk of people revile you because of your speech it might be a mistake to mis-speak but that does not make it "wrong".  It might be wrong to call people names but most people will avoid it because it leads to punishment, not because there is a moral imperative not to do so.  As far as anyone knows there is no cast iron moral basis for banning modes of speech.

The most popular recent approach to morality is cultural relativism.  This holds that one culture cannot lecture another on morality.  However, this is always applied in such a way that the members of an isolated tribe or a defined group of foreign customs will be given a free pass on departing from our moral norms but subcultures in our own cities will be reviled for their behaviour and attitudes.

Modern morality seems to be simply a way for groups to bully others.  If a group gets consensus media approval of their moral high ground then they are virtuous and groups that they condemn are pariahs.  There is no reason to it, it is just bullying. One thing we do know for certain is that adopting the "moral high ground" is wrong, not morally wrong, just obviously wrong because those who believe they occupy the moral high ground will certainly fail to explain what morality actually is and why anyone should be moral. Stripped of its morality it is just bullying which we can accept or reject on practical grounds if not moral.

This new mock morality is disturbing because it applies moral terms to people that it condemns and so converts them into evil beings that the mock moral group must avoid and expel.  The new morality is buttering people up for something really nasty because once you make people into evil sub-humans anything is possible.
















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

The Report on Racism

The " Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities " has just been published.  The Commissioners were nearly all from BAME backgrounds and have produced a robust and fair Report. The Report identified a class divide in which the cycle of advantage maintains a section of the population in wealth and leaves the large bulk of the population in relative poverty.   The wealthy class is largely white British but the poorer class consists of large numbers of white British and other ethnic groups.  This class divide causes a bias in the crude statistics on disadvantage so that majority, poor white British are labelled as "white supremacists" etc. when it is the small wealthy class that actually creates the disparity that causes this analysis. The most striking finding is that different ethnic groups had very different experiences and outcomes.  Educational outcomes demonstrate this at a glance: Red text added for this article Most ethnic groups had better outcome