Optional

This post is a response to this article posted on my old University's blog. All my philosophical education comes from the TV show The Good Place, so take it with a grain of salt.

The article is an attempt by the author to cope with her – what she perceives to be – immoral decision of getting a dog. She is mainly worried about the negative impact on the environment the dog will have. But she manages to rationalize throwing your hands up and saying “It's too hard” into not giving a fuck is morally good in the long run.

Do Morals Even Matter?

After a brief introduction into the author's personal story of getting a dog she mocks philosophers that talk about 'population ethics'¹. She calls into question whether morality plays a role in the decision whether to have children. As an example the author presents her friend who did not consider ethics when having her child.

My own anecdotal evidence leads me to agree that most people do not consciously take morals into account when making any decision, really. But I do (want to) believe that on a subconscious level morals are taken into account. The reason people are not killing each other on the streets is not only because of law, but also a sense of morality.

And if a person truly believes that a child brought into this world today will suffer greatly and cause even more suffering to others then this belief will influence their decision. But because the moral worth we assign to different actions² is subjective and also coloured by our own interpretation of what “collapsing ice caps” even means. To make it concrete: If you think – whether out of ignorance or not – that your child will have a great life and its impact on “society” will be either negligible or even positive then you will not consciously take morality into account. It's not a moral choice. Other factors like money or family will factor in more heavily.

Are We The Baddies?

The author says she “[doesn't] really see [herself and her friend] as evil villains.” There's two problems with this self-evaluation. Firstly, evaluating yourself in comparison to “evil villains” will always lead a favourable outcome for yourself. While recent pop culture tries to deconstruct the image of “evil villains” as one dimensional hate-filled monsters, it is still the prevailing mental image of an “evil villain”. In a direct comparison it's easy to note that you are not throwing MI6 agents into tanks filled with sharks and thus do not fit the criteria of an evil villain. Case closed.

Secondly, evaluating yourself as a person will throw your guard up. You do not want to see yourself as a bad person and thus will deploy all measures of self-deception to escape a condemning verdict of your character as a whole³. When separating your actions from your person it's easier to admit that, “yes, getting a dog is morally questionable at best, but that does not mean I'm a bad guy“⁴.

Thus we can conclude that not seeing yourself as an evil villain is quite expected, but unhelpful. Evaluating the moral worth of your actions, on the other hand, is much more productive as you can work on them in future⁵. Which is also a great moment to say that...

That's Not Utilitarianism

Jumping ahead a bit, we get an explanation of utilitarianism that crudely misrepresents it. And I'm not talking about confusing “happiness” for “utility”, which is just a minor nit-pick. No, instead I'm talking about her misinterpretation of what it means to “maximise”.

The author argues that, because there are more moral alternatives to your actions, it's just too tiresome and doesn't let you “be human”. But having a far away goal is not a problem with utilitarianism, it's a feature. If we design our own moral framework where we claim that clapping your hands together once is the only moral act and everything you do after that has no bearing on morality at all, then what have we gained? We can be “done” with morality and not get tired by it. But that's not how (nearly) anything in life works. You can make more money, you can have more friends, you can score more soccer goals, you can read more books. In all parts of life we can chase infinite goals that we will never reach. Feeling tired or burnt out by that is valid and it is human, but so is having these aspirations in the first place.

And this unreachable goal is not inherent only in utilitarianism. In virtue ethics you can always become a more virtuous person. In deontology you can do more of the “good” actions or better ones. All these frameworks describe an ideal. Yes, giving money to charity instead of spending it on a cappuccino may be morally better, but morality is not the only lens under which to view your actions. And you yourself factor into this equation as well. If getting this coffee means that you'll ace your job interview and that you'll be able to donate 5% of a bigger salary to charity, then getting that coffee actually is the morally better choice.

A Divorced Woman's Throw Pillow

The article then goes on to explain “moral contamination”, which is also succinctly explained in this clip of the Good Place. And it's true. Life is complicated. All our decisions are so intertwined with the life of strangers all around the world, such that we can't even listen to music without inadvertently “[delivering] a higher kill ratio”.

The author seems to be blaming (or crediting) progress in the thinking about ethics as the culprit behind this moral contamination. I'd like to add that globalisation has also played a huge part in this. Without it it would not even be possible for us to make decisions with such wide reaching consequences.

So What's The Point?

The article summarizes all its shaky arguments into the conclusion that it's okay to do the immoral thing today to be able to do the moral thing tomorrow. And even though I disagree with the examples, premises and arguments, I'd have to agree with this conclusion. From a utilitarian perspective, I'd argue that what might seem like a less moral action, like a coffee or holiday, can actually be the moral action because it is the self-care that allows you (or people near you) to make more moral decisions in future.

But, since I believe most people to not make enough moral choices (myself included), I find this article highly reprehensible for helping people to justify more immoral behaviour. What's really angering me is the examples of getting a dog and having a child. These are huge decisions that should be weighed with caution. I totally get it if you don't want to think about morals when you decide whether to get the Spanish tomatoes or the local ones, but bringing a child into this world has far reaching consequences not only to yourself, but the child in question and the people around you.

And I'm not blaming anyone for getting a dog or having a child. How that equation pans out for you is highly subjective. The only offense I take is with a “professional ethicist” telling people to ignore their moral compass.

---

If you want another view on how we can bare the burden of taking part in the destruction of the planet and what it means to bring a child into such a world I highly recommend Paul Schrader's masterpiece First Reformed.

Footnotes

[1] She does this with a hostility I find quite uncalled for. ↑ [2] Or their consequences, peoples' virtues, what have you. ↑ [3] Here I have to throw in a recommendation for the documentary “The Act of Killing” by Joshua Oppenheimer. ↑ [4] It was a toss up between linking this and Billie Eilish. ↑ [5] Supplement “actions” with “virtues that led you to your actions” or “consequences of your actions” depending on your moral framework of choice. ↑

___ Reach out via Mastodon @Optional@dice.camp or shoot me an email