💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ziq-morality-vs-ethics.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 15:00:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Morality Vs. Ethics Author: ziq Date: 2019 Language: en Topics: post-left, morality, moralism, ethics, authority, critique of leftism, violence, pacifism, nihilism Source: https://raddle.me/wiki/morality_vs_ethics
The difference between morality and ethics is a major misunderstanding
leftists have of anarchist politics. Most leftists are unaware of,
unwilling to consider, or unable to grasp the distinction. But it's an
important distinction for anarchists to make because morals are so
entangled with authority. This essay will try to explain the differences
between morality and ethics from an anarchist perspective.
In polite society, 'moral' is a label typically applied by people to
themselves and their group so they, if we're being perfectly honest, can
present themselves as a pure and righteous person capable of doing no
'wrong'.
The 'moral' person sees themselves as fighting a universal battle
between good and evil. They of course cast themselves in the role of the
righteous crusader for good; incapable of straying from the 'moral
constitution' that enshrines them in sanctified holiness.
The label 'immoral' is applied to whoever the 'moral' group decides is
counter to their notions of goodness. They do this so they can maintain
'moral' superiority over the out-group and thus justify any action they
take to marginalise these undesirables without feeling remorse or having
to justify their behaviour to anyone. By being a proud moral crusader,
they don't need to give even a moment's thought to the cruelty they
inflict on whichever individual or group they've decided is a threat to
their sacred moral constitution.
The immoral villains who violate the sacred constitution can never be
forgiven for their perceived crimes against morality because morality is
definitive and final. The despicable villains must be forever shunned by
the altruistic heroes in order to maintain their pious morals. Racial
segregation was considered morally righteous in the US South. As was
cleansing the land of 'savages' during colonisation. Lynching bi-racial
children for being 'impure'. Denying women equality by reasoning that it
would lead to 'moral decadence'.
The recent government massacres of drug users in the Philippines were
justified by creating a moral panic. The tyrant leading the massacres
appointing himself as the one and only arbiter of virtue, that all moral
people should blindly follow.
Perhaps the most deadly moral panic of the last century was spurred by
Mao's cultural revolution in China. His Little Red Book of quotes; a
virtual moral blueprint, was used by the party-faithful to purge scores
of random people for having morally-objectionable... haircuts,
furniture, pets or fashion sense. Likewise, Stalin and his supporters in
the USSR forced homosexuals and other out-groups into gulags where they
were worked to death for 'crimes against morality'.
And of course the prototypical moral blueprint; the Christian bible, was
used to lead brutal moral crusades across the world for centuries; mass
slaughters, land seizures and forced conversions of non-Christians.
Moral systems are designed to oppress and marginalise anyone the system
deems undesirable. They are based on transcendent rules that are
forcibly applied to all people from all backgrounds, in all situations;
regardless of each individual's desires and values.
Unlike society's authoritative and punitive morals, ethics are decided
on a case-by-case basis by the individual based on their own values and
desires. Ethics are tangible and tied to real cause and effect outcomes.
Ethics are voluntary personal views rather than collectively-enforced
top-down ones.
Morality is always formed and upheld by a collective: a religious
institution, a workplace, an educational organization, a cultural group,
a club, a society.
Ethics are personal, informed by an individual's experiences and their
own needs and desires.
Morals are applied to everyone inside and often outside of a group by a
collective and its authority. Ethics are applied to the individual by
the individual and in most cases affect no one but the individual.
Morals require hierarchy, authority, law and enforcement of said law,
while ethics simply require that an individual draw their own lines to
determine what they are personally willing to live with, what
compromises they're willing to make, what actions they're willing to
take against others.
Moralists have differing ideas of morality but they largely operate in
absolutes: Some are ardent pacifists who insist there can be no excuse
for any form of violence, while others will demand violence be done to
those who break their moral law in even the most minor way. But in
practice, even the most ardent moral pacifist will embrace violence when
their egos are put under enough pressure.
Often pacifist moralists will simply shift what they see as 'violence'
to overcome the cognitive dissonance they're confronted with when
someone breaks their laws and thus threatens their moral authority. So,
suddenly the violence of putting people in cages or sterilizing them or
lobotomizing them or euthanizing them is seen by the pacifist moralist
as 'humane' and 'non-violent'. The hypocrisy of the moralist is truly
boundless, but devotion to their ideology is something the moralist will
fight tooth and nail to cling to, even when every aphorism of that
ideology has been warped beyond recognition. This is how we end up with
the hypocrisy of Christians preaching "do no harm" one day and then
leading bloody pogroms and crusades the next. Or syndicalists in civil
war Spain claiming to want to build equality and freedom and to abolish
authority, while murdering nuns for refusing to renounce their faith and
building forced labor prisons.
A moralist opposition to violence might be: violence is universally
wrong, immoral, bad. Why? Simply because the collective authority behind
the moralist says so. Requesting justification for such an abstract
statement would be scoffed at because morality is seen by the moralist
as some kind of divine truth that can't be questioned. The simple act of
questioning it or the authority behind it would be enough to render you
immoral.
On the other hand, a measured ethical opposition to violence can be made
by an amoralist... They can see that in many cases violence begets more
violence, fosters systems based on the dominance of the strong, and can
lead to deep-seated multi-generational divisions. But in other cases,
they could see violence as ethically just. Because the alternative (e.g.
fascism) would likely be worse.
A moralist forces their reactionary and irrational will on everyone
else. Their morals are absolute. An amoralist isn't concerned with
forcing their personal perspective onto everyone, or with maintaining
that perspective in every situation as if it were unquestionable dogma.
Morality places paint-by-the-numbers judgement on every action, positing
that all actions in column A are inherently 'wrong' and unacceptable,
while all actions in column B are inherently 'right' and necessary.
Regardless of the experiences of the people involved, their personal
convictions and motivations, and the conditions that are present in that
place and time.
Inevitably, the moralist collective will go on to break every moral law
they've set when they deem it necessary to, and the wonders of cognitive
dissonance will allow them to absolve themselves of any responsibility
for breaking their supposedly uncompromising moralism.
Anarchists aren't uncaring monsters for rejecting morality, as the moral
left will have you believe. We're rejecting an incredibly dangerous,
authoritarian concept that directly leads to untold misery for the
multiple generations of people forced to survive inside the walls of the
dogmatic moral systems imposed on them from above.
Morality and ideology go hand in hand to deny people their most basic
autonomy: Their freedom to decide right from wrong according to their
own needs, desires and values.