Morality gives a certain structure to society. It puts everyone, or at least the majority of people, on the same page concerning how to treat others. Those that do not fit within this code of how to treat others are restricted by the rest of the population in some way. Without this structure in place how would the world be different? If our current moral structure were completely reversed and bad became the new good and good became the new bad I think this would be detrimental to society. People would not have empathy or compassion for anyone else and only care about themselves. How would society learn to work together? Furthermore, what exactly would it mean to reverse our current moral orientation? Would that mean killing, stealing, hating and lying would become things to strive for? Would that mean honesty, love, kindness, and service would become things to avoid? If this would be the case, then I think we can all agree that a world with these preferences would crash and burn fairly quickly. A world like this would not promote the growth or well-being of our species. Right?
-
1It is probably not enough just to be moral. People need to share the same story so far as that is possible. Directed toward shared ends and purposes. Something like Christian Europe during the Middle Ages, though a true expert may point out that medieval times were not so homogeneous. Anyway it seems to me that today it would take a huge, sudden catastrophe to get people on the same page, and even with that we would be lucky to have ten years of unity.– GordonAug 29, 2018 at 17:17
-
Would that mean killing, stealing, hating and lying would become things to strive for? Would that mean honesty, love, kindness, and service would become things to avoid? If this would be the case, then I think we can all agree that a world with these preferences would crash and burn fairly quickly. -- A glance at any newspaper will show that on the contrary, such a world is flourishing around us.– user4894Aug 29, 2018 at 18:22
-
Well news sources focus on the bad things that are happening on purpose because they know it will catch people's attentions more– geocalc33Aug 29, 2018 at 18:43
-
I would not have thought of Richard Rorty had it not been for this question and the question of another poster today. Perhaps we could put morals aside (and the attempt to change people) and focus on problems using a pragmatic approach. Ad hoc problem solving. The problem with this approach is information overload. We can agree on the problems, but we delay the solutions many times because we have too many options. Nevertheless this approach would perhaps be more in tune with "postmodernism".– GordonAug 29, 2018 at 18:44
-
What is the point of the question? If moral orientation were "reversed", it would be a lack of morality. What would immoral actions mean? Generally, that is making inconsistent moral decisions. Although, it seems a more colloquial definition of morality is meant. So a lack of accepted right/wrong for a society would mean that good→bad and bad→good actions. Absurd. That doesn't make sense.– adamaeroAug 29, 2018 at 19:05
1 Answer
A free translation of a passage from Kant's 'Perpetual Peace' suggests that even a group of devils could form a perfectly tolerable society so long as they were rational. They could have the worst of moral orientations, as you might describe it, but provided they were not completely self-dependent (in which case they they would not need to form a society) they would have to adjust their behaviour to suit each others' needs. If they lie, they will not be believed, therefore their lies will not work, and so they will be constrained to tell the truth. They might not care in the least about others' interests but unless they helped others in need, when they themselves were in need others would not help them : and so they would have to practise a form of mutual aid.
I could extend the story but you can see how as the details build up, and the consequences of rationality unfold, a society of devils would form a society in which the requirements of present morality would still be followed. There would be no altruism, no benevolence, since the 'diabolic' moral motivation would be different from and exactly inimical to ours, but truth-telling, mutual aid and the rest would, I venture to suggest, be steered swiftly into place by rational self-interest. Hate one another they might, but help one another they will.
Welcome to PSE !
