When the bad imitate the good, there is no knowing what mischief is intended
A conversation with ChatGPT about compassion, resilience and moral absolutism
Jannik: We seem to live in times where some people are trying to enforce universal definitions of what “good” and “bad” means - even though this can't be done. Those people are obviously not good people if they are doing what they are doing for selfish ends such as controlling the narrative or basking in a feeling of moral superiority. But why exactly are they doing what they are doing? What is their goal?
"To do good you should know what good is".
- Publilius Syrus, Sayings, 389
"He should be called bad, who is good only for selfish ends."
- Publilius Syrus, Sayings, 474
“When the bad imitate the good, there is no knowing what mischief is intended”.
- Publilius Syrus, Sayings, 551
ChatGPT: People who try to enforce universal definitions of "good" and "bad" may be motivated by various factors. Some common reasons include:
1. Desire for control: By defining what is good and bad, individuals can control the narrative and influence people's thoughts and actions. This can grant them power over others or help them achieve specific goals.
2. Moral absolutism: Some people genuinely believe that there are objective moral truths and values that should be universally applied. They might think that by enforcing these definitions, they are contributing to a more ethical society.
3. Self-righteousness: Some individuals may feel morally superior to others and believe they possess the correct understanding of good and bad. They may view their attempts to enforce these definitions as a means of educating others and guiding them toward the right path.
4. Fear and insecurity: People might feel threatened by differing moral viewpoints or ambiguity. By trying to enforce a universal definition of good and bad, they can create a sense of certainty and safety.
5. Social identity: Aligning with a specific moral framework can help individuals define their social identity and signal their belonging to a particular group. By promoting these definitions, they can strengthen their connection to like-minded individuals and feel validated.
It is important to remember that people's motivations can be complex and multifaceted. Understanding these motivations can help facilitate more constructive conversations about ethics and morality, even when individuals may not agree on universal definitions of good and bad.
Jannik: Can you summarize G. E. Moore's open-question argument?
ChatGPT: G. E. Moore's open-question argument is a philosophical objection to the naturalistic fallacy, which is the attempt to define moral properties (such as "good" and "bad") in terms of natural properties (like pleasure, pain, or other empirical features of the world). The open-question argument is an essential part of Moore's broader critique of ethical naturalism in his book "Principia Ethica" (1903).
The open-question argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Suppose someone attempts to define "good" in terms of a natural property, such as pleasure (e.g., "Good is whatever brings about pleasure").
2. Despite this definition, it is still possible to ask the open question: "Is pleasure always good?" or "Is it true that what brings about pleasure is always good?"
3. If "good" were synonymous with "pleasure," asking such questions would be nonsensical or redundant, as they would amount to asking, "Is pleasure always pleasure?" or "Is what brings about pleasure always what brings about pleasure?"
4. The fact that these questions remain open and meaningful suggests that "good" is not synonymous with any natural property (like pleasure) and that defining it in such terms commits the naturalistic fallacy.
In essence, Moore's open-question argument contends that moral terms like "good" cannot be reduced to natural properties because doing so would render certain meaningful questions about ethics incoherent or redundant. This argument has been influential in the development of ethical non-naturalism, which asserts that moral properties are distinct from natural properties and cannot be defined in purely naturalistic terms.
Jannik: And, obviously, the same goes for "bad" - so attempting to describe pain as necessarily bad would be an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
ChatGPT: Yes, that's correct. Just as Moore's open-question argument applies to attempts to define "good" in naturalistic terms, it also applies to attempts to define "bad" in the same way. If someone were to define "bad" as "whatever brings about pain," one could still meaningfully ask the open question: "Is pain always bad?" or "Is it true that what brings about pain is always bad?"
The fact that these questions remain open and not redundant implies that "bad" is not synonymous with any natural property, such as pain. Therefore, trying to define "bad" in terms of pain would also be committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Moore's argument supports the view that moral properties like "good" and "bad" are distinct from natural properties and cannot be defined or reduced to empirical features of the world. This perspective contributes to the development of ethical non-naturalism, which holds that moral properties are irreducible to natural properties.
Jannik: So, according to the open-question argument hate speech is not necessarily a morally bad thing?
ChatGPT: The open-question argument itself does not make any specific claims about the moral status of particular actions or behaviors like hate speech. Instead, the argument is focused on the relationship between moral properties (such as "good" and "bad") and natural properties (like pleasure, pain, or other empirical features of the world).
What the open-question argument implies is that we cannot automatically conclude that hate speech is morally bad based solely on its natural properties or consequences. Instead, determining whether hate speech is morally bad requires engaging with ethical reasoning and principles that cannot be reduced to purely naturalistic terms.
To assess the morality of hate speech, one would need to consider various ethical perspectives and arguments, such as the consequences of hate speech, its impact on individual rights and liberties, and its alignment with moral values like respect, fairness, and compassion. These considerations go beyond the scope of the open-question argument and involve engaging with different ethical theories and frameworks.
Jannik: How does it affect my rights and liberties if someone says hateful things about me?
ChatGPT: When someone says hateful things about you, it can have an impact on your rights and liberties in various ways, depending on the context and severity of the speech. Some possible consequences include:
1. Emotional and psychological harm: Hate speech can cause emotional distress, anxiety, and even trauma, which may affect your ability to exercise your rights and liberties to their fullest extent.
2. Reputation and social standing: Hateful comments may damage your reputation or social standing, potentially leading to exclusion from social groups or professional opportunities.
3. Freedom of speech and expression: Hate speech can create a hostile environment that stifles open discussion and the free exchange of ideas. This may impact your ability to freely express your opinions or beliefs.
4. Discrimination: Hate speech can contribute to a culture of discrimination, which may result in unfair treatment or reduced access to resources, opportunities, and social benefits.
5. Personal safety: In some cases, hate speech can incite violence or harassment, directly threatening your physical safety and security.
It is important to note that legal systems and societies strike different balances between protecting freedom of speech and addressing the harmful consequences of hate speech. In some countries, hate speech is regulated by laws that aim to protect individuals and groups from harm, while still respecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The specific balance between these competing interests may vary depending on the jurisdiction and cultural context.
In any case, when assessing the impact of hate speech on your rights and liberties, it is crucial to consider the broader ethical and legal context, as well as the specific circumstances of the speech in question.
Jannik: I agree with all those things but how can we both implement respect and compassion and resilience in our culture? It seems to me that the more we focus on protecting people from disrespect and lack of compassion the more we are in danger of creating a culture where everyone is a victim.
ChatGPT: Promoting respect, compassion, and resilience in a culture requires a balanced approach that acknowledges the potential trade-offs and challenges. Here are some strategies that can help foster these values while avoiding the pitfalls of creating a culture of victimhood:
1. Encourage empathy and understanding: Foster a culture where people are encouraged to empathize with others and understand different perspectives. This can help to promote respect and compassion while reducing potential misunderstandings or conflicts.
2. Emphasize personal responsibility and growth: Encourage individuals to take responsibility for their actions and reactions, and to view challenges as opportunities for growth and learning. This can help to build resilience and discourage a victim mentality.
3. Promote open dialogue and debate: Encourage open discussions about difficult topics, while maintaining an atmosphere of respect and civility. This can help to build resilience by exposing individuals to different viewpoints and fostering critical thinking.
4. Provide support networks and resources: Ensure that individuals have access to support networks and resources that can help them cope with challenges and develop resilience. This may include mental health services, community programs, or educational initiatives.
5. Teach conflict resolution skills: Educate people about effective communication and conflict resolution strategies that can help them navigate disagreements or confrontations in a respectful and constructive manner.
6. Balance protection with empowerment: While it's essential to protect vulnerable individuals and groups from harm, it's also important to empower them to overcome challenges and advocate for themselves. Striking this balance can help to avoid fostering a culture of victimhood.
7. Celebrate diversity and inclusivity: Encourage a culture that values and celebrates diversity, promoting inclusivity and respect for all individuals regardless of their background, beliefs, or experiences.
8. Model positive behavior: Leaders and influential figures in society should model the values of respect, compassion, and resilience in their interactions with others, setting an example for others to follow.
By implementing these strategies, it's possible to foster a culture that promotes respect and compassion while building resilience, helping to reduce the likelihood of creating an environment where everyone is perceived as a victim.
Jannik: Food for thought. Thank you! It seems to me that we are missing something in this conversation, though. In my opinion, it is very obvious that some people are exploiting most people’s willingness to protect vulnerable groups by trying to bully people they disagree with into compliance by accusing them of being morally bad people if they disagree.
ChatGPT: You raise an important point about how some individuals might exploit the genuine concern for vulnerable groups to bully or silence those with differing opinions. It's crucial to recognize this potential issue and address it in a balanced and fair manner. Here are some suggestions on how to approach this challenge:
1. Promote open and respectful dialogue: Encourage an atmosphere where people can express their opinions and disagreements respectfully without resorting to ad hominem attacks or accusations of moral inferiority. This can help to prevent the misuse of moral accusations as a means to silence dissenting voices.
2. Distinguish between disagreement and disrespect: It's important to recognize that having a different opinion does not automatically make someone morally bad or disrespectful. Encourage a culture that acknowledges and accepts the possibility of differing viewpoints and values.
3. Encourage critical thinking and skepticism: Promote an environment where people are encouraged to question and critically examine arguments, even when they come from sources that claim to be advocating for vulnerable groups. This can help to prevent the exploitation of compassion for manipulative purposes.
4. Establish clear guidelines and expectations: In discussions and debates, set clear guidelines for respectful behavior and the fair treatment of opposing viewpoints. This can help to prevent people from using accusations of moral inferiority as a tool to silence dissent.
5. Hold people accountable for their actions: If individuals misuse concern for vulnerable groups to bully or silence others, it's important to hold them accountable for their actions and reinforce the importance of open, respectful dialogue.
6. Focus on the substance of the argument: Encourage people to engage with the content of the argument rather than resorting to personal attacks or moral judgments. This can help to create a more constructive and fair environment for discussion.
By implementing these strategies, it's possible to create an environment where compassionate advocacy for vulnerable groups coexists with respectful disagreement and open debate. This can help to ensure that the genuine concern for vulnerable individuals is not exploited as a tool to silence or bully those with differing opinions.