What do you think?
Rate this book
The Moral Fool: A Case for Amorality
Justice, equality, and righteousness—these are some of our greatest moral convictions. Yet in times of social conflict, morals can become rigid, making religious war, ethnic cleansing, and political purges possible. Morality, therefore, can be viewed as pathology-a rhetorical, psychological, and social tool that is used and abused as a weapon.
An expert on Eastern philosophies and social systems theory, Hans-Georg Moeller questions the perceived goodness of morality and those who claim morality is inherently positive. Critiquing the ethical "fanaticism" of Western moralists, such as Immanuel Kant, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Rawls, and the utilitarians, Moeller points to the absurd fundamentalisms and impracticable prescriptions arising from definitions of good. Instead he advances a theory of "moral foolishness," or moral asceticism, extracted from the "amoral" philosophers of East Asia and such thinkers as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Niklas Luhmann. The moral fool doesn't understand why ethics are necessarily good, and he isn't convinced that the moral perspective is always positive. In this way he is like most people, and Moeller defends this foolishness against ethical pathologies that support the death penalty, just wars, and even Jerry Springer's crude moral theater. Comparing and contrasting the religious philosophies of Christianity, Daoism, and Zen Buddhism, Moeller presents a persuasive argument in favor of amorality.
An expert on Eastern philosophies and social systems theory, Hans-Georg Moeller questions the perceived goodness of morality and those who claim morality is inherently positive. Critiquing the ethical "fanaticism" of Western moralists, such as Immanuel Kant, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Rawls, and the utilitarians, Moeller points to the absurd fundamentalisms and impracticable prescriptions arising from definitions of good. Instead he advances a theory of "moral foolishness," or moral asceticism, extracted from the "amoral" philosophers of East Asia and such thinkers as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Niklas Luhmann. The moral fool doesn't understand why ethics are necessarily good, and he isn't convinced that the moral perspective is always positive. In this way he is like most people, and Moeller defends this foolishness against ethical pathologies that support the death penalty, just wars, and even Jerry Springer's crude moral theater. Comparing and contrasting the religious philosophies of Christianity, Daoism, and Zen Buddhism, Moeller presents a persuasive argument in favor of amorality.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
18 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
Read
April 6, 2024Like probably most of the readers here, I know Moeller owing to his Youtube presence, in which he has an excellent way of presenting some awfully arcane ideas about Taoism and media theory, and applying them to the contemporary cultural landscape. The Moral Fool is an earlier work, more in line with continental philosophy as such, albeit from an explicitly Taoist philosophical perspective. It's a big, bold statement, attempting to remove the moral dimension in favor of something that is more pragmatic and emphatically not relativist. I don't know how successful he is in that shedding of morality. I don't understand the Tao Te Ching, as much as I admire it, although I'm guessing not many people really do, including most practicing religious Taoists. So I don't know if I'm on board. But it is goddamn bold, and I liked the arguments. We'll see how this settles in my mind.
Read
September 22, 2024I enjoy challenging myself and my worldview often and because I hold ethics in a high regard a book arguing for amorality peaked my interest. I was not completely disappointed. The book was for the most part enjoyable to read and I felt like I was challenged and compelled to think for myself.
The best part of the book for me was the well founded warning for the dangers of moral judging of others. Moeller presents successful critique for ethics as a science and for universal ethical principles overall. However Moeller seems to view morality as these black-and-white judgements of good or evil and seems to argue that since we cannot come up with any objective universal moral principles, we should give up moral thinking as far as possible. There, I think, Moeller is mistaken.
Moeller claims that in everyday life we don't really think about ethics nor should we. He thinks that most problems in life can and should be solved amorally. Moeller doesn't however explain how exactly is this done. He claims that we can (and should) replace morality or moral discourse with love and law. Moeller claims that rather than judging wether something is moral or not, we should judge wether it is legal or not. To me it is left unclear though, how do we judge what should be legal or illegal if not with our sense or understanding of right and wrong.
Another way to live amorally according to Moeller is this Daoist way of living according to nature. But what exactly is natural and what is not? Isn't everything that humans do as parts of nature therefore natural? Moeller claims that infants do not think in moral terms but this is infact not true. In recent studies toddlers (and some animals) have been found making rather moral judgements about others actions (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/39/e...).
All in all my problem with Moellers arguments is that Moeller seems to think that it is somehow possible to make amoral judgements and in a way step outside of morality. I do not think this is possible. While I agree that we cannot know what is absolutely right and wrong I also think that we are morally responsible for everything we do or leave undone. This is a crucial part of the human condition for me. We are forced to make decisions and judgements even if it is impossible to know whether we are making the right choise or the wrong one and we are responsible for those choices to ourselves and others around us. To claim that certain moral dilemmas don't matter and that we should aim for impartiality and amorality is fundamentally a moral claim. Every single choice and value judgement we make has an ethical side to it. We can choose to ignore that side but we cannot claim that this would be an amoral act.
The best part of the book for me was the well founded warning for the dangers of moral judging of others. Moeller presents successful critique for ethics as a science and for universal ethical principles overall. However Moeller seems to view morality as these black-and-white judgements of good or evil and seems to argue that since we cannot come up with any objective universal moral principles, we should give up moral thinking as far as possible. There, I think, Moeller is mistaken.
Moeller claims that in everyday life we don't really think about ethics nor should we. He thinks that most problems in life can and should be solved amorally. Moeller doesn't however explain how exactly is this done. He claims that we can (and should) replace morality or moral discourse with love and law. Moeller claims that rather than judging wether something is moral or not, we should judge wether it is legal or not. To me it is left unclear though, how do we judge what should be legal or illegal if not with our sense or understanding of right and wrong.
Another way to live amorally according to Moeller is this Daoist way of living according to nature. But what exactly is natural and what is not? Isn't everything that humans do as parts of nature therefore natural? Moeller claims that infants do not think in moral terms but this is infact not true. In recent studies toddlers (and some animals) have been found making rather moral judgements about others actions (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/39/e...).
All in all my problem with Moellers arguments is that Moeller seems to think that it is somehow possible to make amoral judgements and in a way step outside of morality. I do not think this is possible. While I agree that we cannot know what is absolutely right and wrong I also think that we are morally responsible for everything we do or leave undone. This is a crucial part of the human condition for me. We are forced to make decisions and judgements even if it is impossible to know whether we are making the right choise or the wrong one and we are responsible for those choices to ourselves and others around us. To claim that certain moral dilemmas don't matter and that we should aim for impartiality and amorality is fundamentally a moral claim. Every single choice and value judgement we make has an ethical side to it. We can choose to ignore that side but we cannot claim that this would be an amoral act.
December 19, 2021
The author's YT channel
Interview about the book
Interview about the book
[T]he absolute good, if it is a describable state of affairs, would be one which everybody, independent of his tastes and inclinations, would necessarily bring about or feel guilty for not bringing about. And I want to say that such a state of affairs is a chimera. No state of affairs has, in itself, what I would like to call the coercive power of an absolute judge. (Wittgenstein - Lecture on Ethics)
April 30, 2014
The introduction of this book is titled, "Is It Good to Be Good?" That question captures well the basic thrust of Moeller's discussion. The moral fool is not wilfully immoral. Rather, the moral fool is one who is agnostic as to whether good and evil have any objective, let alone absolute, standing in reality; who thus can never affirm or deny for sure whether it is "good to be good." In this, the moral fool is inspired by Daoist philosophy (although Moeller draws on Chinese Confucian and Buddhist thought, too, and is also heavily indebted to the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann).
In some ways, the book seems like an experiment, or series of experiments, in whether moral foolishness can be maintained. It is presented in three parts. The first develops a notion of amorality by way of a portrait of the moral fool in one chapter, and a more theoretical account of amorality as "negative ethics" in a second chapter.
Part 2 presents a "Pathology of Ethics." Over five chapters Moeller raises questions about the redundancy or superfluity of ethics in much of ordinary life, and even in many extraordinary situations; about the ambivalent role of anger and perhaps other emotions in providing the psychological motive forces of morality; about the independence of aesthetic norms and the damage done when moral evaluation intrudes on the aesthetic; about the failure of classic philosophical moralists to successfully identify absolute moral norms (and the sometimes appalling acts they believed their theories justified); about the myth of moral progress in societies and individuals.
Part 3 raises doubts about the value of morality for debates regarding law, civil rights, capital punishment, war and terrorism, and the mass media. A conclusion gives a somewhat facetious prescription for putting amorality into practice.
I do not recommend this book for readers who prize cogent argumentation. Several reviews have appeared in academic journals that with good reason hammer at the books weaknesses on this score. For all that, something about the book still makes me think it worth reading. More than anything, I think it is that Moeller pushes me to think new ideas that I might not conceive without the irritant of flamboyant amoralism. I have been reading the book with a dozen undergraduates, and the conversation has been never less than vigorous. This seems evidence that Moeller is getting at some presuppositions that have escaped our critical scrutiny, above all that morality itself is self-evidently moral - valuable, good, and right.
My own conclusion is that amorality is often wise, but hard to justify. Thus, it may be even wiser to affirm that there are situations that properly demand moral engagement; that morality indeed does engage us with values that are real and important; but that not all situations are moral situations, and our engagement of moral values is always fallible; so we do well to hold our morals lightly and gracefully, not absolutely, open to the possibility of wandering free and easy through the difficult, yes, but also the delightful moral diversity of all under heaven.
In some ways, the book seems like an experiment, or series of experiments, in whether moral foolishness can be maintained. It is presented in three parts. The first develops a notion of amorality by way of a portrait of the moral fool in one chapter, and a more theoretical account of amorality as "negative ethics" in a second chapter.
Part 2 presents a "Pathology of Ethics." Over five chapters Moeller raises questions about the redundancy or superfluity of ethics in much of ordinary life, and even in many extraordinary situations; about the ambivalent role of anger and perhaps other emotions in providing the psychological motive forces of morality; about the independence of aesthetic norms and the damage done when moral evaluation intrudes on the aesthetic; about the failure of classic philosophical moralists to successfully identify absolute moral norms (and the sometimes appalling acts they believed their theories justified); about the myth of moral progress in societies and individuals.
Part 3 raises doubts about the value of morality for debates regarding law, civil rights, capital punishment, war and terrorism, and the mass media. A conclusion gives a somewhat facetious prescription for putting amorality into practice.
I do not recommend this book for readers who prize cogent argumentation. Several reviews have appeared in academic journals that with good reason hammer at the books weaknesses on this score. For all that, something about the book still makes me think it worth reading. More than anything, I think it is that Moeller pushes me to think new ideas that I might not conceive without the irritant of flamboyant amoralism. I have been reading the book with a dozen undergraduates, and the conversation has been never less than vigorous. This seems evidence that Moeller is getting at some presuppositions that have escaped our critical scrutiny, above all that morality itself is self-evidently moral - valuable, good, and right.
My own conclusion is that amorality is often wise, but hard to justify. Thus, it may be even wiser to affirm that there are situations that properly demand moral engagement; that morality indeed does engage us with values that are real and important; but that not all situations are moral situations, and our engagement of moral values is always fallible; so we do well to hold our morals lightly and gracefully, not absolutely, open to the possibility of wandering free and easy through the difficult, yes, but also the delightful moral diversity of all under heaven.
November 7, 2021
The basic idea of Amorality is that morality doesn’t exist: it is kind of like God. Like God morality is a narrative or perhaps sets of narratives and concepts that we use to organize and make sense of reality and pass judgements. And in modern times although we have brushed off
(kind of) the narratives containing God, we are still very much covered in narratives of morality. Now, the author doesn’t go about making a case for amorality directly in terms of the benefits of amorality: how it reduces our cortisol levels(you can make this case in a way), but rather in a negative way. Moeller takes the point of view of moral foolishness, inspired from a Daoist parable, and criticizes morality.
For Moeller, what replaces morality is Love and Law: not the Christian agape, but the Confucian filial piety and Law as in Law. The Confucian love is not dependent on any commandments of thou shalt love thy neighbor, but on familial affection and bonds. And the Law is a self contained system that is influenced by common morality, not just that but also economical and social conditions. The Law, although influenced by these factors, acts in a way separate from them and unto itself.
There are obvious disagreements that we will voice against Moeller's arguments, and Moeller addresses a few of them. The American Civil Rights movement is taken as a case study and Moeller makes a good case how the civil rights itself was primarily about legal rights, still he grudgingly accepts how it had a moral backing but it would have remained in a virtual world of morality if they weren’t solidified into rights. In connection with this the Civil war is mentioned and how it was primarily concerned with the the salvation of White Americans since slavery was a sin and had nothing to do with the rights of Black Americans as such which led to them being abandoned, free and vulnerable at the end of the war. Perhaps the POV of the moral fool can help us understand the complicated moral underpinnings of social issues and hold back from jumping up and down with the crowd with each popular moral victory tale despite it’s feel good element.
There are issues with his endorsement of Love and Law: Institutions of Law are run by humans. There are instances where the Law might not function properly, perhaps might even function in unhealthy ways, even without moral contamination, and it might require a moral realignment to set it right. Law, unlike morality, which is an attitude, is much more concrete which makes it difficult to set it straight, it will require long and arduous processes to get the results.
There might be a chance where Filial Piety itself might get moralized. In that case Moeller might claim that it has been contaminated then it shows that the replacement is not only not immune but could potentially act as the root from which a new morality could sprout.
The three most interesting parts of the book are Moeller’s deconstruction of the Moral substratum of Death Penalty, Just War narratives and Mass Media.
At the end Moeller observes rightly that a Utopia of Amorality might not be possible. Still, the perspective of the Moral fool could be an important one: especially during these times of sanctimoniousness.
“There is something in the souls of men that seeks crimes to be avenged.”
Perhaps this sentiment is something deeply ingrained in us that it makes the position of Amorality extremely difficult. There is also the fact that intuitions or interests or desires or whatever we want to use as a sub for morality itself emerged out of moral conflicts and discourses. Still , despite this, being a moral fool, I believe, could be refreshing, enlivening even adventurous. After all we are , as the author says, Moral fools most of the days.
(kind of) the narratives containing God, we are still very much covered in narratives of morality. Now, the author doesn’t go about making a case for amorality directly in terms of the benefits of amorality: how it reduces our cortisol levels(you can make this case in a way), but rather in a negative way. Moeller takes the point of view of moral foolishness, inspired from a Daoist parable, and criticizes morality.
For Moeller, what replaces morality is Love and Law: not the Christian agape, but the Confucian filial piety and Law as in Law. The Confucian love is not dependent on any commandments of thou shalt love thy neighbor, but on familial affection and bonds. And the Law is a self contained system that is influenced by common morality, not just that but also economical and social conditions. The Law, although influenced by these factors, acts in a way separate from them and unto itself.
There are obvious disagreements that we will voice against Moeller's arguments, and Moeller addresses a few of them. The American Civil Rights movement is taken as a case study and Moeller makes a good case how the civil rights itself was primarily about legal rights, still he grudgingly accepts how it had a moral backing but it would have remained in a virtual world of morality if they weren’t solidified into rights. In connection with this the Civil war is mentioned and how it was primarily concerned with the the salvation of White Americans since slavery was a sin and had nothing to do with the rights of Black Americans as such which led to them being abandoned, free and vulnerable at the end of the war. Perhaps the POV of the moral fool can help us understand the complicated moral underpinnings of social issues and hold back from jumping up and down with the crowd with each popular moral victory tale despite it’s feel good element.
There are issues with his endorsement of Love and Law: Institutions of Law are run by humans. There are instances where the Law might not function properly, perhaps might even function in unhealthy ways, even without moral contamination, and it might require a moral realignment to set it right. Law, unlike morality, which is an attitude, is much more concrete which makes it difficult to set it straight, it will require long and arduous processes to get the results.
There might be a chance where Filial Piety itself might get moralized. In that case Moeller might claim that it has been contaminated then it shows that the replacement is not only not immune but could potentially act as the root from which a new morality could sprout.
The three most interesting parts of the book are Moeller’s deconstruction of the Moral substratum of Death Penalty, Just War narratives and Mass Media.
At the end Moeller observes rightly that a Utopia of Amorality might not be possible. Still, the perspective of the Moral fool could be an important one: especially during these times of sanctimoniousness.
“There is something in the souls of men that seeks crimes to be avenged.”
Perhaps this sentiment is something deeply ingrained in us that it makes the position of Amorality extremely difficult. There is also the fact that intuitions or interests or desires or whatever we want to use as a sub for morality itself emerged out of moral conflicts and discourses. Still , despite this, being a moral fool, I believe, could be refreshing, enlivening even adventurous. After all we are , as the author says, Moral fools most of the days.
November 7, 2011
Very frustrating, in the sense that the author does a far better job in attacking the views of others rather than in presenting his own. What he is doing is not so much making a case FOR amorality, as he is making a case AGAINST any sort of a priori, Natural Law, hell against sort of system of thought where specifics can be drawn from generalities.
As an example: he criticizes the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. And then criticizes it again, and then again. All fine by me, in fact I think we may even be on the same page there. But that's where he stops. Is this how you "make a case?" Isn't he supposed to be, well, presenting how the "amoral" would have gone about things in a post 09/11 world?
I felt like I couldn't evaluate amorality in this text, for the simple reason that it is never actually presented. Very odd text, indeed.
Oh, yes. And though I claim no great expertise on Daoism, I'm fairly sure they had no strenuous objection to the death penalty, had a decidedly mixed view of homosexuality, and over time degenerated into a syncretized blob of Buddhism, Chinese folk religion and who knows what else.Moeller hippity-hops past that bunny trail entirely, presuming a Daoism unchanging and ahistorical. And we never get his comments on how a leader is advised to keep his people's bellies full and minds empty (per the Tao de Jing), which is a pity.
As an example: he criticizes the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. And then criticizes it again, and then again. All fine by me, in fact I think we may even be on the same page there. But that's where he stops. Is this how you "make a case?" Isn't he supposed to be, well, presenting how the "amoral" would have gone about things in a post 09/11 world?
I felt like I couldn't evaluate amorality in this text, for the simple reason that it is never actually presented. Very odd text, indeed.
Oh, yes. And though I claim no great expertise on Daoism, I'm fairly sure they had no strenuous objection to the death penalty, had a decidedly mixed view of homosexuality, and over time degenerated into a syncretized blob of Buddhism, Chinese folk religion and who knows what else.Moeller hippity-hops past that bunny trail entirely, presuming a Daoism unchanging and ahistorical. And we never get his comments on how a leader is advised to keep his people's bellies full and minds empty (per the Tao de Jing), which is a pity.
November 5, 2022
The book tries to make a case for less moral thinking, and while it succeeds for the most part, it also becomes a bit repetitive at times.
Hans-Georg Moeller looks at many different ways people have tried to arrive at objective morality, and argues against each of them. But more importantly, it's not the objectivity of moral judgment that he attacks in the book, but the relevance of it in modern times. In fact, he tries to argue that talking more in moral terms somehow makes things worse off. There are many nice passages about the usage of "ought" and Wittgenstein, and some cool Daoist short-stories. The last chapter about Ethics and Mass media was the most interesting for me, and can read as a standalone essay as well.
Overall a great read, which voiced quite a few things that I have been thinking about but have not had the precise words to formulate them. On the other hands, now that it had happened, I had even more questions about the subject, which I guess is a good thing as well.
Would have gone for 4 stars because of repetitiveness at places and ignoring some of the issues (like how will social change happen in a society which has stopped thinking about things in moral terms), but going for 5 because of the amount of intrigue it caused within me about the subject, and some very nice anecdotes and examples.
Hans-Georg Moeller looks at many different ways people have tried to arrive at objective morality, and argues against each of them. But more importantly, it's not the objectivity of moral judgment that he attacks in the book, but the relevance of it in modern times. In fact, he tries to argue that talking more in moral terms somehow makes things worse off. There are many nice passages about the usage of "ought" and Wittgenstein, and some cool Daoist short-stories. The last chapter about Ethics and Mass media was the most interesting for me, and can read as a standalone essay as well.
Overall a great read, which voiced quite a few things that I have been thinking about but have not had the precise words to formulate them. On the other hands, now that it had happened, I had even more questions about the subject, which I guess is a good thing as well.
Would have gone for 4 stars because of repetitiveness at places and ignoring some of the issues (like how will social change happen in a society which has stopped thinking about things in moral terms), but going for 5 because of the amount of intrigue it caused within me about the subject, and some very nice anecdotes and examples.
February 24, 2018
this was painful to read. moeller should be embarrassed.
August 23, 2022
Happy to have just finished this excellent book by Hans-Georg Moeller. I found Moeller through his YouTube channel, Carefree Wandering. Though his channel content and cultural commentary is insightful, reading him craft a more rigorous philosophical argument definitely made me appreciate his unique voice as a thinker more.
You can summarize Moeller's basic contention in the book with a single sentence: be careful with strong morality and hold confident ethics at a distance. According to Moeller, we should not be so sure that moral communication and thinking is such a good thing. As he puts is, "is it good to be good?" This can seem like a strangely nihilist entrance into a book, but Moeller explains his position in crystal clear terms. In fact, the quality of his writing in his book was a pleasant suprise: clarity, humour, a nice balance of scholarly voice mixed with accessible explanations of things to philosophical laypeople (like myself).
What Moeller has a beef with is the commonly unquestioned, brash, dangerously dogmatic moralizing and ethical 'thinking' we have in today's world. Moeller certainly doesn't think morals and ethics are always or inherently 'bad', he just points out (quite indisputably) how much harm has been done to people and societies via people and regimes who had the utmost confidence in their moral frameworks. It's almost cliche to say it but it's true--even Hitler was really confident he was helping Germans, that his views, his ethics were correct. Immanuel Kant argued that children born out of wedlock could be murdered, and that his was a conclusion derived solely and fundamentally from universal and supremely rational moral thinking. (You've got to love how Moeller goes after certain philosophers in the book.) In line with say, Nietzshe (and I have to agree here), Moeller posits there really are no moral absolutes in an objective sense--only beleifs. I don't know if there is truly anything more than the beliefs we hold, but episetmologically speaking, I'm also yet to see anyone argue that they have access to the universal ethics or morals in anywhere near a convincing manner.
I like the perspective of the moral fool. The moral fool doesn't think good things aren't good or the bad ones not bad...the fool just recognizes the limited, contigent nature of believing one's moral judgements. It's a very rhetorical view of ethics and morality, focused on the situatedness of all moral communication and the concrete, always contextual nature of ethical decisions. It's dangerous to assume our moral judgements will hold fast and true to every possible situation; it's strange and irresponsible ot think we can communicate and make decisions about ethics in some ahistorical sense, one untouched by our places in time, history, culture, etc.
One of my favorite aspects of the book is the discussion of righteous anger. Moeller gives a great critique of Aristotle, sublty showing how contemporary philosophers rely on Aristotelian rhetorical advice to foster moral frameworks that embrace and capitalize on the power of moral anger and outrage to stir people into a frenzy. We don't think straight when we are so outraged and convinced of the correctness of our morality.
Lots more to be said, but I'll end with saying this was a thought-provoking, well argued, and entertaining book. Looking forward to reading more Moeller.
You can summarize Moeller's basic contention in the book with a single sentence: be careful with strong morality and hold confident ethics at a distance. According to Moeller, we should not be so sure that moral communication and thinking is such a good thing. As he puts is, "is it good to be good?" This can seem like a strangely nihilist entrance into a book, but Moeller explains his position in crystal clear terms. In fact, the quality of his writing in his book was a pleasant suprise: clarity, humour, a nice balance of scholarly voice mixed with accessible explanations of things to philosophical laypeople (like myself).
What Moeller has a beef with is the commonly unquestioned, brash, dangerously dogmatic moralizing and ethical 'thinking' we have in today's world. Moeller certainly doesn't think morals and ethics are always or inherently 'bad', he just points out (quite indisputably) how much harm has been done to people and societies via people and regimes who had the utmost confidence in their moral frameworks. It's almost cliche to say it but it's true--even Hitler was really confident he was helping Germans, that his views, his ethics were correct. Immanuel Kant argued that children born out of wedlock could be murdered, and that his was a conclusion derived solely and fundamentally from universal and supremely rational moral thinking. (You've got to love how Moeller goes after certain philosophers in the book.) In line with say, Nietzshe (and I have to agree here), Moeller posits there really are no moral absolutes in an objective sense--only beleifs. I don't know if there is truly anything more than the beliefs we hold, but episetmologically speaking, I'm also yet to see anyone argue that they have access to the universal ethics or morals in anywhere near a convincing manner.
I like the perspective of the moral fool. The moral fool doesn't think good things aren't good or the bad ones not bad...the fool just recognizes the limited, contigent nature of believing one's moral judgements. It's a very rhetorical view of ethics and morality, focused on the situatedness of all moral communication and the concrete, always contextual nature of ethical decisions. It's dangerous to assume our moral judgements will hold fast and true to every possible situation; it's strange and irresponsible ot think we can communicate and make decisions about ethics in some ahistorical sense, one untouched by our places in time, history, culture, etc.
One of my favorite aspects of the book is the discussion of righteous anger. Moeller gives a great critique of Aristotle, sublty showing how contemporary philosophers rely on Aristotelian rhetorical advice to foster moral frameworks that embrace and capitalize on the power of moral anger and outrage to stir people into a frenzy. We don't think straight when we are so outraged and convinced of the correctness of our morality.
Lots more to be said, but I'll end with saying this was a thought-provoking, well argued, and entertaining book. Looking forward to reading more Moeller.
Read
October 25, 2023I can't exactly agree with Moeller. But his views are definitely worth reading as a counter to the muddleheadedness I've seen among philosophers of ethics.
I would make two points from this book: a) what is moral is very hard, if not impossible, to determine; and b) we are better off thinking / talking in terms other than moral. Toward a) his dismissal of the cottage industry of philosophers of ethics is priceless. Regarding b) there clearly is work to be done in some areas.
I can't help think that for instance obeying traffic regulations IS a moral matter (though I can't express why - see a) ) even though we are better off talking about it without invoking morality. Furthermore, though I agree that for instance law should determine courtroom outcomes, I'm sure that Moeller knows all too well that laws can be created (eg Nazi and Apartheid laws) just as abusively as morality can be invoked - yet he gives no hint at how we are to determine which laws to write and which to scrap.
I can't rate the book. It was not an enjoyable read - possibly a bit poorly written.
I would make two points from this book: a) what is moral is very hard, if not impossible, to determine; and b) we are better off thinking / talking in terms other than moral. Toward a) his dismissal of the cottage industry of philosophers of ethics is priceless. Regarding b) there clearly is work to be done in some areas.
I can't help think that for instance obeying traffic regulations IS a moral matter (though I can't express why - see a) ) even though we are better off talking about it without invoking morality. Furthermore, though I agree that for instance law should determine courtroom outcomes, I'm sure that Moeller knows all too well that laws can be created (eg Nazi and Apartheid laws) just as abusively as morality can be invoked - yet he gives no hint at how we are to determine which laws to write and which to scrap.
I can't rate the book. It was not an enjoyable read - possibly a bit poorly written.
July 2, 2021
A worthwhile discourse on morality, and the potential for harm of viewing things and communicating in oral terms. Poor ole Kant comes out of it a bit worse for wear though. I shall have to get my hands on some more of Mr Moeller's books.
December 25, 2011
Moeller provides one of the more compelling cases for amorality that I have read.
January 31, 2016
Good book on a way of looking at morality I hadn't thought of before. I like the idea of removing the Moral or ethical claim from the law especially.
January 1, 2024
Happy to have just finished this excellent book by Hans-Georg Moeller. I found Moeller through his YouTube channel, Carefree Wandering. Though his channel content and cultural commentary is insightful, reading him craft a more rigorous philosophical argument definitely made me appreciate his unique voice as a thinker more.
You can summarize Moeller's basic contention in the book with a single sentence: be careful with strong morality and hold confident ethics at a distance. According to Moeller, we should not be so sure that moral communication and thinking is such a good thing. As he puts is, "is it good to be good?" This can seem like a strangely nihilist entrance into a book, but Moeller explains his position in crystal clear terms. In fact, the quality of his writing in his book was a pleasant suprise: clarity, humour, a nice balance of scholarly voice mixed with accessible explanations of things to philosophical laypeople (like myself).
What Moeller has a beef with is the commonly unquestioned, brash, dangerously dogmatic moralizing and ethical 'thinking' we have in today's world. Moeller certainly doesn't think morals and ethics are always or inherently 'bad', he just points out (quite indisputably) how much harm has been done to people and societies via people and regimes who had the utmost confidence in their moral frameworks. It's almost cliche to say it but it's true--even Hitler was really confident he was helping Germans, that his views, his ethics were correct. Immanuel Kant argued that children born out of wedlock could be murdered, and that his was a conclusion derived solely and fundamentally from universal and supremely rational moral thinking. (You've got to love how Moeller goes after certain philosophers in the book.) In line with say, Nietzshe (and I have to agree here), Moeller posits there really are no moral absolutes in an objective sense--only beleifs. I don't know if there is truly anything more than the beliefs we hold, but episetmologically speaking, I'm also yet to see anyone argue that they have access to the universal ethics or morals in anywhere near a convincing manner.
I like the perspective of the moral fool. The moral fool doesn't think good things aren't good or the bad ones not bad...the fool just recognizes the limited, contigent nature of believing one's moral judgements. It's a very rhetorical view of ethics and morality, focused on the situatedness of all moral communication and the concrete, always contextual nature of ethical decisions. It's dangerous to assume our moral judgements will hold fast and true to every possible situation; it's strange and irresponsible ot think we can communicate and make decisions about ethics in some ahistorical sense, one untouched by our places in time, history, culture, etc.
One of my favorite aspects of the book is the discussion of righteous anger. Moeller gives a great critique of Aristotle, sublty showing how contemporary philosophers rely on Aristotelian rhetorical advice to foster moral frameworks that embrace and capitalize on the power of moral anger and outrage to stir people into a frenzy. We don't think straight when we are so outraged and convinced of the correctness of our morality.
Lots more to be said, but I'll end with saying this was a thought-provoking, well argued, and entertaining book. Looking forward to reading more Moeller.
You can summarize Moeller's basic contention in the book with a single sentence: be careful with strong morality and hold confident ethics at a distance. According to Moeller, we should not be so sure that moral communication and thinking is such a good thing. As he puts is, "is it good to be good?" This can seem like a strangely nihilist entrance into a book, but Moeller explains his position in crystal clear terms. In fact, the quality of his writing in his book was a pleasant suprise: clarity, humour, a nice balance of scholarly voice mixed with accessible explanations of things to philosophical laypeople (like myself).
What Moeller has a beef with is the commonly unquestioned, brash, dangerously dogmatic moralizing and ethical 'thinking' we have in today's world. Moeller certainly doesn't think morals and ethics are always or inherently 'bad', he just points out (quite indisputably) how much harm has been done to people and societies via people and regimes who had the utmost confidence in their moral frameworks. It's almost cliche to say it but it's true--even Hitler was really confident he was helping Germans, that his views, his ethics were correct. Immanuel Kant argued that children born out of wedlock could be murdered, and that his was a conclusion derived solely and fundamentally from universal and supremely rational moral thinking. (You've got to love how Moeller goes after certain philosophers in the book.) In line with say, Nietzshe (and I have to agree here), Moeller posits there really are no moral absolutes in an objective sense--only beleifs. I don't know if there is truly anything more than the beliefs we hold, but episetmologically speaking, I'm also yet to see anyone argue that they have access to the universal ethics or morals in anywhere near a convincing manner.
I like the perspective of the moral fool. The moral fool doesn't think good things aren't good or the bad ones not bad...the fool just recognizes the limited, contigent nature of believing one's moral judgements. It's a very rhetorical view of ethics and morality, focused on the situatedness of all moral communication and the concrete, always contextual nature of ethical decisions. It's dangerous to assume our moral judgements will hold fast and true to every possible situation; it's strange and irresponsible ot think we can communicate and make decisions about ethics in some ahistorical sense, one untouched by our places in time, history, culture, etc.
One of my favorite aspects of the book is the discussion of righteous anger. Moeller gives a great critique of Aristotle, sublty showing how contemporary philosophers rely on Aristotelian rhetorical advice to foster moral frameworks that embrace and capitalize on the power of moral anger and outrage to stir people into a frenzy. We don't think straight when we are so outraged and convinced of the correctness of our morality.
Lots more to be said, but I'll end with saying this was a thought-provoking, well argued, and entertaining book. Looking forward to reading more Moeller.
November 5, 2025
I appreciate the author’s light touch and humor. I am not sure if going to a “Moral Fool” mindset is the best idea for modern states and their accompanying stakes (perceived or real). I say this as someone who has been thoroughly baptized in the western philosophical traditions from birth.
Since there is (always?) still an underlying question of good vs neutral vs bad, the digression into “morality” will always be a a tempting possibility. Even the Taoist inclination to disregard evaluations of “morality” and “ethical” are attempts to make the world and humanity “better” in some sense - Confucianism is conceived in a context of “family,” which has obvious complications when applied globally or even nationally. I suspect that a better definition of “morality” is actually what might help move societies toward “goodness.”
If morality is based on something akin to “cooperation” it may have a chance at a credible subject for discussion and debate.
Since there is (always?) still an underlying question of good vs neutral vs bad, the digression into “morality” will always be a a tempting possibility. Even the Taoist inclination to disregard evaluations of “morality” and “ethical” are attempts to make the world and humanity “better” in some sense - Confucianism is conceived in a context of “family,” which has obvious complications when applied globally or even nationally. I suspect that a better definition of “morality” is actually what might help move societies toward “goodness.”
If morality is based on something akin to “cooperation” it may have a chance at a credible subject for discussion and debate.
October 13, 2025
What a magnificent book! Although it was written in 2009, I find it remarkably foresighted and highly relevant today. The author writes with clarity and incorporates elements of humor, making it both engaging and insightful. This book is incredibly useful for navigating today’s morally charged media landscape.
February 22, 2021
Interesting read!
March 20, 2022
Good
Some catastrophic thinking (anxiety about overpopulation for example) in here but mostly a really interesting and thought provoking read through and through.
Some catastrophic thinking (anxiety about overpopulation for example) in here but mostly a really interesting and thought provoking read through and through.
April 23, 2022
Terribly agreeable book. Daoism (Taoism) meets Systems Theory. Highly recommend to anyone that’s into critical ethics.
February 15, 2023
Ahora puedo comerme el último pedazo de pizza sin sentir que soy malo
June 5, 2021
Same as the spontaneity book: had to read for freshman "meaning of life" college class..... hated this... I didn't even read most of it.. I just skimmed for the info I needed.
September 22, 2014
Although I don't agree with the conclusions to most of Moeller's arguments, I found this book to be one of the most compelling reads in a really long time.
Recommended if you are looking for a moral system outside of, or adjacent to, Western Judeo-Christian morality.
Recommended if you are looking for a moral system outside of, or adjacent to, Western Judeo-Christian morality.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews