The following is a recent paper of mine on Meta-morality, or the way in which we formulate our morality.

In this paper, I will discuss the final conclusions that one can arrive at within an analysis of morality. Much discussion is made over the proper choices to make in certain situations, with regards to a moral code. Most people want to make the right moral decisions when given the opportunity. But often, our decisions are not made with the highest moral intentions. Ultimately, I want to encourage the viewpoint that a meaningful life and a moral life are not intrinsically tied together, which shows that morality is but one of many noble values that an individual can aspire towards. Because of this, there is an inability of any moral code to fully describe the ideal way to live our lives.

A few normative theories of morality today include utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Religious based morality. These systems attempt to work like a mathematic function and take a situation, and then prescribe a proper responding action. Utilitarianism is a system in which the right action to take is the one where, the maximum overall happiness is achieved, and the minimum overall pain is created. Kantianism, is a system where the right action is one where, if it was performed by everyone, would benefit the world. Religious morality comes from specific laws given by sacred texts, and doctrines developed by those of religious authority. This again, leads to prescriptive guidelines on how to act in certain situations. Attempting to act in accordance of these guidelines, whichever system you believe in, is an attempt to live a moral life.

It can be said that morality is a noble pursuit of life. Like I have said, many desire, or feel a duty to live a moral life. Morally good actions have an intrinsic value to them, as in they are good in and of themselves. However, there are other non moral pursuits that one can have in life. In fact, most would consent that there is great value in certain non moral pursuits, and acknowledge that “the admiration and striving toward achieving any of a great variety of forms of personal excellence are character traits it is valuable and desirable for people to have.” (Wolf 1, 426) These non moral qualities are not seen as worthless, but instead, are seen intuitively are virtues that are valuable and positive.

Among countless non moral virtues that have some positive value, there are four that stand out as particularly valuable. Academic pursuit and achievement has noble value, and we look up to great scientists and thinkers, even if their studies have no moral merit. Most topics and subjects taught in schools do not specifically involve moral components, but are nonetheless regarded as good. Athletic achievement is generally considered desirable. Great athletes are praised for their abilities, and not for any component of their moral character. Creative abilities that are expressed and manifest in paintings, sculptures, music, or other types of artwork enrich the world, and are considered good things. Finally, aesthetic qualities are visible in a talented chef’s cooking, or a beautiful skyscraper built by a famous architect. All of these things have no moral component, but still have worth.

It follows that there must be some aspect that makes these pursuits and actions good. Furthermore, this is not just true for extraordinary persons, but “For us too, the activities of artistic creation and research, the development of our skills and our understanding of the world give meaning to our lives – but they do not give moral value to them” (Wolf 2, 12) It is not a moral consideration that makes these actions valuable, but it is the meaning that they give to our lives. So, there are considerations other then moral considerations that we give value and meaning towards.

However, in following any moral code to the maximum of one’s ability, one invariably must choose to neglect pursuits in these other areas. Every choice to engage in a non moral virtue goes against a normative theory on morality because an alternate choice could be made that had more moral merit. If a morally upstanding person, the moral saint, “is devoting all his time to feeding the hungry or healing the sick or raising money for Oxfam, then necessarily he is not reading Victorian novels, playing the oboe, or improving his backhand.” (Wolf 1, 421) These alternate actions have value however, so we reach a standstill.

One might say that these alternate actions should be done with the intentions of reaching a moral end, such as creating artwork to sell and donate the money to charity. However, a great piece of artwork is obviously still valuable even if the artist did not donate their earnings to charity. These non moral actions have their own intrinsic value, and treating them as means to an end is taking away something from them. If morality reigns over all other values, then these non moral values “cannot be encouraged for their own sakes as distinct, independent aspects of the realization of human good.” (Wolf 1, 425)

It can be said that everyone should have a life that is full of meaning, or at least aspire towards it. Furthermore, it “is disturbing, or at least regrettable, to find someone who doesn’t care about this” (Wolf 2, 13) Susan Wolf, through a thorough analysis on the topic of a meaningful life, defines it as one that is “actively and somewhat successfully engaged in projects of positive value.” (Wolf 2, 16) This definition fits closely to the intuitions of most. The significant motivating point against moral normative theories, however, is that a meaningful life can be separated from a moral life. Intuitively, our judgments about the characteristics of meaningful lives do not parallel our judgments of moral character. (Wolf 2, 12) This idea is sometimes hard to admit, but manifests in our admiration of common historical figures that have made great accomplishments, but at the same time are regarded as being immoral people. Several examples that Wolf gives are “Gauguin, Wittgenstein, [and] Tchaikovsky – morally unsavory figures all, whose lives nonetheless seem chock full of meaning.” (Wolf 2, 12). At the same time, they were not moral figures. Wittgenstein, in particular, would often beat young children during his time as a school teacher. Obviously, we do not praise them for their immoral actions, but should not demote the value of their contributions because of their moral flaws. The fact that a meaningful life can, at all, be separated from a moral life shows that there are other values that are important and have meaning.

Of course, the response towards this argument is a simple and direct one. Simply put, that we are misguided in even giving meaning towards these other values. When we compare the meaning of these other values to morality, they are always inferior. Because of this, “our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society.” (Singer, 231) There is so much moral responsibility in the world that we are neglecting for these other pursuits. If we are obligated to always act in the best interests of the common human good, then we surely are not doing so. We consider it a noble action to give some of our money to charity, but Peter Singer, a utilitarian, states that “there are no acts which it would be good to do but not wrong not to do.”(Singer, 234) We should continuously give our money towards moral ends. Every decision we make that uses our time and resources for a non-moral pursuit, is an action that is immoral. It could always be said that those resources could have been used towards a moral end, instead of a non moral end. Morality is difficult, but it is still the most important thing.

Of course, Singer, in this regard, refuses to give any meaning to any other values other then morality. Perhaps, we are being immoral, but perhaps, there is more to life than that. There are countless reasons to believe that we should not disregard these other values. What a huge damnation on humanity it would be to say that art, science, music, and countless other pursuits are all worthless and that it would be a better world if they were forbidden. This is not a conclusion that we would want to reach. However, if, for any decision that can be made, the moral one is always made, then these other pursuits will simply be demoted, or removed entirely. Because great accomplishments have been made without moral accordance, it leads us to believe that there are these values that are full of meaning without having any moral component. It has been established that living a moral life and a meaningful life are both goals that are deserving of admiration. It is good to seek both, to be “actively engaged,” in pursuing them, even if one’s life will never be the most meaningful it could possibly be, or as moral as it could possibly be. (Wolf 1, 9) However, because the values that contribute towards a meaningful life, at times, conflict with the values of a moral life, it leads to the conclusion that it is not possible to seek both to the fullest amount. If one favors the pursuit of a meaningful life over a moral life, it is possible that could be a good decision. This causes a standstill because normative theories say that morality always will trump any other value.

It is also something to be said that moral theories should be somewhat in accordance with common intuition. Singer wishes to abandon “supererogatory” action, or “Good Samaritan” action. He claims on the contrary, that we should always do the “supererogatory” action, and that it is wrong to ever choose otherwise. (Singer, 235) However, It doesn’t seem practical or required that we take the “supererogatory” action in every situation, and claiming as such seems to take away our admiration of such actions. This idea of “supererogatory” action further supports that we hold a meaningful life as at least equal to a moral life in value, if not greater. Morally good actions are part of a meaningful life, but are not the only pursuit themselves.

The ending conclusion is that there are certain fatal flaws in normative theories on morality, arising from their underlying assumptions on the role of morality. Specifically, this assumption is that “It is always better to be morally better.” (Wolf 1, 438) The role of morality should be “neither that of a universal medium into which all other values must be translated, nor that of an ever-present filter through which all other values must pass.” (Wolf 1, 438) There are so many other values in the world, and morality, while extremely important, does not have a quality such that it should stand alone. Determining the weight of these different values in accordance with each other would be almost impossible to accomplish. (Wolf 1, 438) As it stands, however, normative theories that make no attempt to give meaning to other non moral pursuits will continue to fail due to these inherent flaws. There most likely cannot be a set of rules that would ever work to properly dictate human behavior. If it were possible, however, it would have to include morality as one of many admirable qualities weighted among many.

Works Cited:

1. Moral Saints. Wolf, Susan. 8, s.l. : The Journal of Philosophy, 1982, Vol. 79.

2. Wolf, Susan. The Meanings of Lives. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. 2007.

3. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Singer, Peter. 1, s.l. : Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971, Vol. 1.