I dare to introduce the concept of “functional morality” in the sense of the internalized moral principles that advance moral behavior on the part of the individuals who make up a society.
That is: if a person or group of people (an ideological movement… like EA) develops a moral conception that, while producing altruistic goods (charity, altruistic economics), serves to influence the whole of conventional (less ideologized) society toward more moral behavior, then this is the best moral behavior (also from a utilitarian point of view).
If we emphasize that it is normal to favor relatives and not those suffering in distant lands (like Africa), we are not practicing “functional morality.” We must acknowledge our weaknesses, not simply accept our moral shortcomings.
If we talk about saving shrimp and farm chickens, we’re not being “functional” either, as these are controversial issues that many well-intentioned people consider extravagant.
As an example cited by some authors, in the fight against slavery, anti-slavery activists were adept at pointing out that the slave trade was not only terrible for poor Africans, but also for the crews of slave ships. That was functional.
The most “functional” morality (and it seems to me also the one most appropriate to utilitarianism) is to promote active charity that is associated with a visualization of virtue on the part of altruistic agents. Altruism must be conceived as a lifestyle, not a mere quantificatiom of goods. Utilitarianism must be seen as a consequence of an altruistic lifestyle that turns “visible” to society as a whole. This lifestyle must guarantee altruistic action and be associated with a benevolent rationality that could be somewhat attractive (that provides, at the very least, emotional and affective rewards that are evident to conventional society).
I believe this is the way moral progress has been achieved so far, and it should continue to be so… in accordance with the circumstances of today’s culture, which are not those of the past.
I dare to introduce the concept of “functional morality” in the sense of the internalized moral principles that advance moral behavior on the part of the individuals who make up a society.
That is: if a person or group of people (an ideological movement… like EA) develops a moral conception that, while producing altruistic goods (charity, altruistic economics), serves to influence the whole of conventional (less ideologized) society toward more moral behavior, then this is the best moral behavior (also from a utilitarian point of view).
If we emphasize that it is normal to favor relatives and not those suffering in distant lands (like Africa), we are not practicing “functional morality.” We must acknowledge our weaknesses, not simply accept our moral shortcomings.
If we talk about saving shrimp and farm chickens, we’re not being “functional” either, as these are controversial issues that many well-intentioned people consider extravagant.
As an example cited by some authors, in the fight against slavery, anti-slavery activists were adept at pointing out that the slave trade was not only terrible for poor Africans, but also for the crews of slave ships. That was functional.
The most “functional” morality (and it seems to me also the one most appropriate to utilitarianism) is to promote active charity that is associated with a visualization of virtue on the part of altruistic agents. Altruism must be conceived as a lifestyle, not a mere quantificatiom of goods. Utilitarianism must be seen as a consequence of an altruistic lifestyle that turns “visible” to society as a whole. This lifestyle must guarantee altruistic action and be associated with a benevolent rationality that could be somewhat attractive (that provides, at the very least, emotional and affective rewards that are evident to conventional society).
I believe this is the way moral progress has been achieved so far, and it should continue to be so… in accordance with the circumstances of today’s culture, which are not those of the past.