I do find something particularly striking about this quote from Nietzsche; it is not exactly what he intended to illustrate, I think, but it stirs up something for me...
That tartuffery, as stiff as it is virtuous, of old Kant as he lures us along the dialectical by paths which lead, more correctly, mislead, to his ‘categorical imperative’ - this spectacle makes us smile, we who find no little amusement in observing the subtle tricks of old moralists and moral-preachers.
It reminds of an interesting kind of phenomenon we (at least I) see every day; we often despise or tire of those who moralise small actions in the world (small actions constantly, that is, not just one-offs). It seems at least prima facie true that we would want a more just world and would like society to enforce just norms and practices, so why is it that we see moralisers as more of an obstacle, or, something to be ignored?
It seems we would want a world governed by those moralists' principled ideals. Yet, those that point out transgressions of common morality at all stops are insufferable and do not seem to be good people to be around. If someone has a powerful moral intuition that we ought not x, where we might think x is wrong in some sense too, but are not bothered acting on it (take littering, for example), of course they would express that and try to convince others not to, yet we brush it off or are annoyed. Perhaps it is just me and I've been around over-the-top righteous moralists that actually do deserve ostracism; or is it the fault of the culture making us lazy to correct moral transgressions? (Or perhaps I am just unusually immoral and it is just me that has this problem).
It seems we would want a world governed by those moralists' principled ideals. Yet, those that point out transgressions of common morality at all stops are insufferable and do not seem to be good people to be around. If someone has a powerful moral intuition that we ought not x, where we might think x is wrong in some sense too, but are not bothered acting on it (take littering, for example), of course they would express that and try to convince others not to, yet we brush it off or are annoyed. Perhaps it is just me and I've been around over-the-top righteous moralists that actually do deserve ostracism; or is it the fault of the culture making us lazy to correct moral transgressions? (Or perhaps I am just unusually immoral and it is just me that has this problem).
Some speculations about this could be that:
(1) It may just be the small and inconsequential acts being pointed out that gets on our nerves whereas sufficiently consequential (or sufficiently relevant) acts rouse our passions.
(2) It depends on how concerned, how emotionally invested in, and how tightly norms are expected to be enforced within the particular group you are around. For example it would be annoying if someone was righteous about marijuana use around a group of students whereas; it would be understandable were a group of boomers upset about it. Another example is the general public are more averse to littering than previously so it does not seems as annoying anymore.
(3) Finally, we just do not like being told what to do. At the end of the day, it is to hard to tell anyone what to do unless they carry with them a legitimate and recognisable status function of authority. Even when someone does, the constant policing of an individuals actions and autonomy is grating and invites rebellion in a very 'irrational' way. I think there is good reason we (or maybe just I) dislike Kant for his absurd moral conclusions; not just that they seem morally unimportant but that there are these universal, timeless, unchanging, transcendental, rules that you must follow. I think this is also the problem with utilitarianism: the burden you put on someone to be a utility maximising machine at every moment in ones life is patently absurd.
(1) It may just be the small and inconsequential acts being pointed out that gets on our nerves whereas sufficiently consequential (or sufficiently relevant) acts rouse our passions.
(2) It depends on how concerned, how emotionally invested in, and how tightly norms are expected to be enforced within the particular group you are around. For example it would be annoying if someone was righteous about marijuana use around a group of students whereas; it would be understandable were a group of boomers upset about it. Another example is the general public are more averse to littering than previously so it does not seems as annoying anymore.
(3) Finally, we just do not like being told what to do. At the end of the day, it is to hard to tell anyone what to do unless they carry with them a legitimate and recognisable status function of authority. Even when someone does, the constant policing of an individuals actions and autonomy is grating and invites rebellion in a very 'irrational' way. I think there is good reason we (or maybe just I) dislike Kant for his absurd moral conclusions; not just that they seem morally unimportant but that there are these universal, timeless, unchanging, transcendental, rules that you must follow. I think this is also the problem with utilitarianism: the burden you put on someone to be a utility maximising machine at every moment in ones life is patently absurd.
Nietzsche does capture this: "this spectacle makes us smile, we who find no little amusement in observing the subtle tricks of old moralists and moral-preachers."
I have no idea though, anyone else run into this or is it just me?
I have no idea though, anyone else run into this or is it just me?
No comments:
Post a Comment