Mylaur t1_j21hwe7 wrote on December 28, 2022 at 11:48 PM

Reply to comment by carrottopguyy in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

Empathy is not something everyone possess in sufficient amount, and it's very easy to lose. You're waging that empathy would be enough to prevent our deliberately selfish self under your ideal to not harm each other, and i think that would dangerously not work... Capitalism is basically what it is.

carrottopguyy t1_j21wztr wrote on December 29, 2022 at 1:38 AM

It's not as if what I'm advocating for could simply just pop into existence and become predominant. It would exist within the pre-existing context of the institutions we already have, and to me it is more of a cultural shift than a structural ideological one.

I think duty based ethical/moral systems are in practice passed down through generational trauma. It's all about what you need to do to get by, or live up to an ideal (an existing precedent.) Pretty common story across cultures:

Fail to live up to expectations -> shame and insecurity -> stress -> emotional outbursts and unhealthy coping -> rhetorical justification for unhealthy behavior, which even becomes common at the cultural level.

So the idea of right and wrong as it relates to our positive moral duties actually creates unhealthy behavior and the conditions for people to be more insecure and defensive and less empathetic. Helping people to realize this is therapeutic at the individual level. It helps people to love themselves as they are. So why not promote it at the familial level, or the communal level?

I am not against a punitive justice system which enforces common negative moral prohibitions, don't kill people, don't steal, etc. I am mainly focused on critiquing positive moral obligations which in practice restrict peoples freedom more than negative ones, because they obligate you to use large portions of your time in a certain way, and they create people with an insecure sense of self worth. Which does not help them function. And we learn this all from a very young age when we are taking all our cues from our parents.

Now, at the end of the day, even if we are not morally obligated to make a living, we would much rather be financially stable than financially insecure or homeless. But wouldn't you rather live in a family and culture which was not full of finger pointing, shame, and inability to cope with things like sickness, mental illness or bad fortune? Our ideas about "duty" break down in the face of the complexity of life, but that doesn't stop people from guilting and berating each other in moments of weakness and vulnerability.

Mylaur t1_j2393ku wrote on December 29, 2022 at 9:26 AM

I misread you the first time. Duty to me is not really something that is prevalent in our western culture, however, the culture of positive do's you call positive moral duties still revolves around what society deems valuable, which is money. So anything that gets money is seen as good, and the reverse bad, the rest, indifferent. And indeed, we learn this gradually, however there must be some overlap between our moral instincts such as doing good work, and preserving the status quo, avoiding conflicts.

I did not realize that positive moral obligations could also be self limiting, yet we are striving towards it, because they are what we should be or do, culturally.

One would require basically therapy on a global scale to change something.

But yes, I agree with your premises. I do think it is gradually shifting already, the last generation understands the flaws of our current system and strives to behave otherwise. One very obvious thing is the openness of discussion of mental illness and the struggles of life.