How to Avoid Road Rage

I was driving to the local post office today and traveling at the speed limit (or maybe a couple of mph over). Lo and behold I notice one car behind me ... right on my tail. I am pondering why on Earth the person is driving like that. And then the person (a woman, oddly enough [in my experience]) holds down her horn until she turns off on a side street.
    I was truly nonplussed.
    Fortunately I had the mental resource of amoralism to account for the whole thing. My analysis is that this person thought I had been doing something wrong. It wasn't just that she wanted me to go faster. How do I know the difference? By the horn-blowing, whose only purpose was to punish me. How do I know that? Because the driver only began to do it as she was about to turn off the road; in other words, it was a parting gesture, like a middle finger -- she was not doing it for the instrumental purpose of trying to get me to speed up (which is probably what the tail-gating was attempting to accomplish).
    This kind of event -- so common in countless guises -- explodes all the pretensions of morality. For the bottom line, it seems to me, is indeed that she wanted me to go faster. Transforming her desire into a judgment that I was doing something wrong is the way morality puffs up our desires in an effort to give them the advantage over other people's desires. The fact that, by common-sense morality, I was actually doing the right thing by staying close to the speed limit, and she was in the wrong for tail-gating and blowing her horn, just shows how infinitely malleable morality is to fit whatever our desires happen to be.
    I love it! This is how I avoid road rage ... by becoming fascinated by human psychology.

Popular posts from this blog

Obligations to Future Generations

  Toby Ord, author of the excellent book,  The Precipice :  Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity , and Jim Holt, author of an excellent review of it in the February 25 issue the New York Review of Books (“The Power of Catastrophic Thinking”) make unnecessary trouble for themselves, it seems to me. Both of them frame the question of what to do on behalf of generations of human beings unborn as a moral question – a matter of what we “should” or “ought” to do (or not do). This inevitably leads to paradoxes and impracticabilities of all kinds, for the simple reason that there just is no moral regime hovering over us, like an etiolated God, issuing commands.   Ord’s quantification of risks supposedly lends objectivity to his recommendations. But it quickly becomes clear that his final assessments are pulled out of a hat, or at least rely on an inapt metric. For example, as Holt puts Ord’s argument, “ We know that the extinction risk posed by natural causes is re...
Read more

What Is the Question? What Is the Answer? The Relation between Meta-ethics and Normative Ethics or On the Good Life

Gertrude Stein is famously said to have asked Alice Toklas, “What is the answer?” and upon hearing only silence then asked, “In that case, what is the question?” It occurs to me now that the distinction between meta-ethics and normative ethics could be put in similar terms, as follows. Meta-ethics is in the business of figuring out what question to ask about ethics; normative ethics is then the business of offering an answer (or answers) to that question.  Here is how this division of labor comes into play with my ethics of desirism. I propose that the proper question to ask about ethics is How shall I (or we) live? or What shall I (or we) do? and not the moralistic How ought one (everyone) live? or What ought one (everyone in such-and-circumstances) do? In other words, ethics is about how to live but not about morals (understood as categorical and commanding). I have called this proposal desirism because the import of the “shall” is to ascertain how to achieve what we ...
Read more

This One’s for You: A Trilogy of Amorality

by Joel Marks Published in Philosophy Now no.  97, July/August, 2013, page 52. There is no such thing as right or wrong! Three years ago I made my constant readers’ heads spin when I first made that announcement (“An Amoral Manifesto,” issues 80 and 81). This was startling coming from me, not only because the statement is startling in itself, but especially because, for an entire decade, I had been writing a regular column for this magazine called “Moral Moments,” in which I pressed home the importance of moral reasoning in all facets of life. Now, suddenly, that was down the tubes! Well, not really suddenly . For it was three years prior to my public announcement that I had had my original “anti-epiphany,” realizing that my commitment to morality was, despite my avowed atheism, itself a kind of theism. I had only been a “soft atheist,” who, like most New Atheists, embraced Socrates’s idea (from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue) that morality was independent of religion (bec...
Read more