Do you see yourself as a moral and ethical person in daily life? If so what guides you and why?
Is lying by word or omission in the work place ok? Taking pens or copy paper? Taking unfair advantage of someone?
I'm Nietzschean. So I'm amoral. I'm good because I want others to think of me as good. I'm dependable because I want others to trust me. I don't lie because it often comes back to bite me.
I believe that if we never would have to answer for our transgressions morality would erode fast.
I also think this is universal. Any other belief is delusional IMHO
Nietzsche showed that morality must go if we are to embrace and affirm life. What he did not see is that the other option, embracing morality at the expense of life, in defiance of it, is just as valid.
I am convinced that humans are basically unable to be moral, not because of any fatal flaw in our psyche, but just because of the constraints placed on us by life itself. Because we are all in a fast process of decline from the get-go, which we don't like and wish to postpone, we are obliged to make something of the time we have through effort. There is no way to do this without harming others, as a simple consequence of there being not enough space for everyone. My project of postponement will inevitably clash with yours at some point, and it will not do so fairly but gratuitously.
We are all vulnerable to extremes of physical and mental pain that swiftly demolish our moral obligations. Even if they never come to pass, the possibility of such scenarios is a permanent structural component of life, and is sufficient to cheapen our moral aspirations. Regardless of how we conduct ourselves IN life, the fact of our being alive, by itself, places obstacles in the way of morality.
Thus:
phands said:
Yes.
I am a very moral an ethical person.
I care deeply about my fellow humans. I try to give back because I'm relatively privileged. In my case, I teach Maths and Science to kids who are struggling, and build or repair houses for Habitat For Humanity at the weekends.
Your silly, trivial question about filching pens is too trite.
The best that can be achieved through acts like these, like teaching children science and helping the homeless, is a second-degree or secondary morality. By continuing to exist, irrespective of my behavior while existing, I essentially give up on meeting my primary moral duty, which is to put the interests of others before my own. I occupy a space that could benefit someone else, use resources that could be diverted to someone who needs it more, and everything I do to entertain myself imposes onerous costs on the environment. So, I am already in a position of deep disrespect of the interests of others by virtue of my persisting in the world. It is only situated within this primary moral failure that secondary do's and dont's can reside, and we find all the moral systems of civilization in this compromised, deflated space. All of them, with no exceptions I have seen, are only interested in the second-degree questions of "how should I live?" or "how can I be a good parent?", and never radically reflect on the primary concerns of "should I live?" and "should I be a parent?"
Concealing or downplaying the primary concerns, and propping up the second-degree questions as if they were primary, is the enterprise of all societies everywhere on the planet. In this way, the moral distortions on display each day are not surprising--letting some people be hungry so the economy can move forward, designating some people as dispensable so they can be killed to preserve peace between nations, stepping on the rights of your neighbor to score political points--and we should acknowledge that these are not anomalies of "our way of life", as if a different way could finally be authentically moral, but inherent qualities of
life.
