One of the few things that almost everyone on the political right or left or who holds to either moral relativism or realism seems to dislike is one person thinking they are morally superior to another. Predictably, one of the only reasons someone would dislike this is if they have no basis for thinking they are morally superior to others and are dissatisfied with being morally inferior instead. Insecurity and subjective dislike are the only ultimate reasons why anyone would object to the inherent connection between the concept of superiority and the idea of moral obligations, as those who keep their moral obligations would have more value than others. Many people despise this true notion.
Not only is this philosophically erroneous, but in many cases it is also spurred on by personal insecurity about how a person might not measure up to their obligations. This error could involve ideological stupidity and absolutely shallow motivations. Any belief held out of personal security or insecurity instead of sheer rationalistic proof is idiotic already, but even a rationalistically verifiable and inherently true belief is invalid in a sense if the person holding to it does so just to satisfy a personal desire--not the idea, but the reason a person believes in it. Beliefs that are the embrace of true and provable concepts are not invalidated like this if a person enjoys them or develops deep feelings around them, even when it comes to the desire for moral superiority.
A desire to savor the greater metaphysical value of being moralistically superior to those who do not share a rationalistic worldview and/or a high moral standing is only irrational if someone's only interest in morality lies in how they can feel better than others. As long as the core, primary motivation is to simply do what one should-- as moral obligations, if they exist, are what one should do regardless of personal preference--then looking down on others who do not care about anything beyond their own preferences cannot possibly be an ideological or moral error. Arrogance is only thinking of oneself as higher than one is, and if one is morally superior to someone else, it would not be immoral or otherwise irrational to savor this.
Some people might reject the very idea of moral obligations because they personally dislike the thought of someone else being morally superior to them, whether or not they have realized that moral superiority is metaphysical superiority. That is, if moral obligations do exist, the people who understand them without making assumptions and sincerely carry them out have more value and deserve better everyday treatment than those who do not care about or understand them. The wishes of the latter are objectively meaningless either way.
The people terrified by this concept cannot deserve to feel at peace as long as the irrational desire to simply have what one wants because one wants it is not set aside. If there are no moral obligations, no one deserves anything, and if there are moral obligations, then some people are inferior to others while still possessing whatever human rights would exist. In either case, or in other words, no matter what, those who are so insecure about the possibility of being inferior to others for moral reasons that they never do anything to contemplate or pursue a high moral standing are pathetic.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment