Compassion and Revenge

I have argued that amorality can hold its own against morality by means of rationality and compassion. A person who cultivates both capacities would have the best tools available for benefiting oneself and the world, and indeed, in part by dispensing with (the belief in) morality. It is true that being moral can or maybe even must involve a heaping portion of rationality, and of course a moralist can also be compassionate. However, my claim is that the belief in morality, being itself irrational, is hardly a natural home for thinking rationally or deploying it to maximum effect. In this respect I see an affinity to the belief in God, which similarly facilitates irrational thinking even in areas outside its purview, creationism being the poster child of this tendency. But how could compassion be conceived as a friend of amorality over morality? Isn’t compassion an inherently moral emotion? 

            I don’t think so. Let me illustrate why by contrast to an emotion like the desire for vengeance. It seems to me that in the latter case, a moralist analysis naturally applies, which is to say, to use Ronnie de Sousa’s term, there is some double counting going on. For if A seeks vengeance against B, A must believe not only that B has done something hurtful to A or possibly even lethal to someone else in A’s circle, but also (this is the double counting) that what B did was wrong or that A has an obligation to visit comparable hurt on B. In yet other moral terms, A or A’s confrere has been an innocent victim, and therefore B deserves a comeuppance. Lacking these latter elements, I don’t see how A could desire to do harm unto B simply because B had done harm unto A or A’s confrere. 

            Now consider compassion. Here I detect no double counting. If A sees that B is suffering in some way, all conditions are satisfied for eliciting A’s compassion. A need not judge that she is obligated to care. A might even believe that B deserves to suffer, but compassion could still arise. Is this not why at least some of the people who visit prisons as volunteers hope to relieve some of the deprivation that the visitors themselves may believe has been justly imposed? I for one discover that my sympathies jump immediately from victims of some crime to the perpetrator once he has been rendered helpless and in need, however appropriately. 

            Indeed, and perhaps this is the clincher: Is it not easy enough to imagine that A seeks vengeance on B out of a sense of duty, all the while feeling compassion for B due to some personal tie of affection? 

            Therefore I think there are good grounds to believe that an amoral world could (and would) contain compassion … and a reason to prefer an amoral world is that it would not contain the desire for vengeance. Certainly there could still be prisons and the like in the amoral world; but their purpose would not be retributive but only protective or corrective.

Popular posts from this blog

Normative Ethics Reclaimed

One “casuality” of amorality as I conceive it has been normative ethics. I came to view it as akin to theology in being about nothing real. Normative ethics is usually conceived as the investigation of what is right or wrong or good or bad or the best way to live, etc. It is distinguished from meta-ethics, which investigates the meanings of these terms rather than their concrete content. For example, a meta-ethical theory might hold that the right thing to do is what we are unconditionally obligated to do, that is, not for any further reason; but then there could be distinct candidates for rightness in general terms, such as never treating anyone merely as a means or maximizing the good. Those latter would be examples of normative ethical theories. Since amorality is the denial of there being any such things as right and wrong etc. … that they are mythical, exactly on par with the categories of sinfulness and blessedness in the absence of God … normative ethics would seem to have no
Read more

A Middle Way of Moralism?

I have opposed amoralism to moralism. Amoralism is a twofold thesis consisting of moral anti-realism and moral abolitionism. Moral anti-realism holds that there is no such thing as morality, that is, objective right and wrong or objective value more generally. Moral abolitionism holds that we would be better off if we accepted moral anti-realism and acted accordingly; that is, the resultant world be more to our collective liking. Thus amoralism seeks the elimination of the belief in morality, both as false and as noxious motivation.  And yet banishing morality from the realm of the real strikes many as dangerous, or perhaps simply impossible. We human beings appear to have built into us a range of moralist attitudes, which have a powerful hold on us and have also served us well through the ages. Amoralism presumes that we could somehow override morality’s hold and argues further that the result would be net positive. I, an amoralist, admit that both claims are counterintuitive, diff
Read more