Morality can be logically self-defeating. And/or
emotionally/psychologically. Either is serious.
If it is logically
useless, it is useless to us as humans.
If morality is logically
self-defeating, then assuming morality is related to who and what we are, then
our nature is self-defeating too.
It can be logical and yet still
useless to us as humans.
If morality is not self-defeating, our nature
may be morally self-defeating. We might be bad at discerning and applying
morality. It is true that good is really grey and we overstate how pure and
regular it is. We concentrate too much on some advantages when the real story
is too mixed and harmful - and fraught with potential dangers.
Minor
perceptions may be self-defeating and not feel like it. It is more likely and
understandable then.
It can happen, however, with major self-defeating
perceptions too.
If there is a thin line between moral and immoral then
what? There is mystery in every action. So even if there didn't have to be a
thin line you could never rule it out.
If we inherently or at least
mostly only see actions as evil because we want to, that is the same as
classifying them as evil because we do not like them. Then morality is
psychologically self-defeating. It is convention and pretence.
Also we see good as to be rewarded and evil as to be punished. We see them as polar opposites despite how close they may look and how many overlaps they may have. The closeness does not stop us psychologically or emotionally putting an unbridgeable gulf between them. The slim difference, the thin line, is why we are so forceful. That backfires for the gulf needs to be really there to justify such action. It is wrong to rage and exert just to stop people crossing a soft border.
Whether morality is real or a useful myth is not the point right now.
Jesus by centering the love of God as the heart of the commandments – adding
that love of neighbour for God’s pleasure – must be part of it do was one of
many who did morality irreparable harm. People trying to find one principle to
rule them all do harm. In reality we must have many principles and weigh them
according to what each situation demands. Morality is not an ultimate law but
a moral toolbox.
The believers claim that every action that God
commands is defined as not sinful and every action that he forbids is defined
as sinful. But then the claim that God is good becomes empty. Sin and
good become mere labels or words to bully with. For example, boxing and
smoking are supposedly allowed despite the harm they do. Childbirth
eventually and inevitably killed women not long ago and yet God did not
recommend having only one or two children.
This is not about the Euthyphro Dilemma. That is if a moral deed is moral for it is moral by some standard that a God has to agree with or is moral because a God lays down that it is moral. If any authority commands what seems immoral, that risks influencing us too much. We are inherently more likely to obey because it says it is right than because it is right. Problem is worse if it is an alleged supernatural authority that will not answer questions or offer clear reassurance.
Relying on an external authority to define what is right is completely incompatible with a reliable conscience and actively undermines genuine human happiness.
Despite Christian lies, enough people disliking you leads to grave, possibly irreparable, psychological harm. Yet they say its only a sin to harm you - ie not a sin to find you repellent.
Arguably we should not speak of morals, evil or sin but focus on the
causing of needless harm. Anything that distracts from the issue, harm, is
embellishment. Thus it is more concerned about rules and bogeyman supernatural
evil than the victim.